NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: Peacekeeper on 05/11/2008 08:07 AM

Title: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Peacekeeper on 05/11/2008 08:07 AM
Why does NASA not turn much attention on this revolutionary propulsion, which will make spaceflight accessible to everybody, instead of a few chosen 3-4 times per year?
Not only rockets are danger, but their potential is limited. I know about laser and other type of propulsions, but a spacecraft directed by this concentrated light is dependent on the same source.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 01:00 PM
$$$$$
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Peacekeeper on 05/11/2008 02:35 PM
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Tim S on 05/11/2008 02:44 PM
Quote
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  9:35 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?

No, not for side projects on pseudo-science. It's been spent on real vehicles and real science.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Peacekeeper on 05/11/2008 04:45 PM
Quote
Tim S - 11/5/2008  5:44 PM

Quote
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  9:35 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?

No, not for side projects on pseudo-science. It's been spent on real vehicles and real science.
They weren't real 60 years ago. They are real now, because of the progressive minds and their scientific work over the decades.  Attention, my friend, attention must be turned on such  "pseudo-science", like you said ;)     Some day the projects, of which I speak, will dominate over the primitive rockets, but I won't be alive to see it!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 04:48 PM
Quote
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  12:45 PM

Some day the projects, of which I speak, will dominate over the primitive rockets, but I won't be alive to see it!

You have no proof that they aren't pseudo-science or that they will work
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 05:03 PM
This isn't a conspiracy.  I speak against unfounded rumors and unresearched posts  

USENET is a good place for these discussions.

My job is to get spacecraft into orbit, it is doesn't matter how they get there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 05/11/2008 05:35 PM
Thanks admins for trimming the nonsense from this thread. There are a number of propellantless methods for changing the momentum of a spacecraft, for example, aerobraking and gravity assists. But to be a possible propulsion technology, the effect needs to be clearly demonstrated first, and then scaled up to something viable. If we're going to use Earth's magnetic fields to get into space (which I assume are the fields you're refering to), then we need a model that generates net force. A key part of the problem is that the Earth's magnetic field primarily generates a torque (a rotation force) not a force pushing in a useful direction. The only ways I know of generating net forces in a particular direction involve structures on the scale of the Earth's magnetic field. For example, a giant conductive ring, looped around one of Earth's magnetic poles, could. through a suffiicently strong electric force travelling in the appropriate direction, generate a large net force that would push it away from Earth.

If you propose to use something like this on the scale of a rocket, then you need to explain the propulsion mechanism. In particular, why is it going to generate net force rather than flip the vehicle?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Peacekeeper on 05/11/2008 06:22 PM
These and others, khallow, like the 'Tether'.  And 'Lifter' technology as well :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: meiza on 05/11/2008 08:22 PM
"Lifters" use air as reaction mass, and need energy for the ionization and acceleration of the air. I wouldn't class it as propellantless since you need both an energy source and reaction mass. It's more like a propeller aircraft.

Tethers can use electrodynamics in low Earth orbit to respin after tossing a payload, and can produce the power for that from solar cells so it could be propellantless propulsion I guess that could perhaps work indefinitely since the momentum exchange is with the mass of Earth.

Then there are the solar sails, electrodynamic and electrostatic sails, all propellantless propulsion if thought of as that way that use the sun's light or the solar wind (which is an ion stream).
Title: RE: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cpcjr on 05/11/2008 09:20 PM
Actually NASA already uses a “propellantless field propulsion” in the form of a gravitational slingshot that swings a space craft around on planet to give it a boost to another.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/12/2008 12:49 AM
Solar sails and tethers have already been tested. NASA has an advanced propulsion lab that used to do deal with all this before they got axed (or so I believe). The only technologies of interest appeared to be casimir effect drives and wormholes. Casimir effect is real, but the thrust is so far pathetic. Wormholes are still sci-fi for all intents and purposes but vaguely plausible.

>EDIT<

Peacekeeper, instead of starting off discussions without apparently knowing much about the subject, why not read the many threads contributed to by people who actually put nuts and bolts into space? Or work with REAL technology? I believe you will derive much more benefit by doing so first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Peacekeeper on 05/12/2008 05:30 AM
Quote
meiza - 11/5/2008  11:22 PM

"Lifters" use air as reaction mass, and need energy for the ionization and acceleration of the air. I wouldn't class it as propellantless since you need both an energy source and reaction mass. It's more like a propeller aircraft.

Tethers can use electrodynamics in low Earth orbit to respin after tossing a payload, and can produce the power for that from solar cells so it could be propellantless propulsion I guess that could perhaps work indefinitely since the momentum exchange is with the mass of Earth.

Then there are the solar sails, electrodynamic and electrostatic sails, all propellantless propulsion if thought of as that way that use the sun's light or the solar wind (which is an ion stream).
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Eerie on 05/12/2008 09:06 AM
Can`t someone ban Peacekeeper? It is rather annoying.  :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hmh33 on 05/12/2008 08:30 PM
Quote
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Disssident on 05/17/2008 05:42 PM
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
How much?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 05/17/2008 08:16 PM
Quote
Disssident - 17/5/2008  10:42 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
How much?

No idea. But you'd have to 1) find an effect, 2) make it large enough that it'd be useful for spacecraft propulsion, and 3) build economically viable engines that use the effect to get to orbit (as indicated by the original poster). If it is relatively easy, I think it'd take a few tens of billions. If the effect isn't useful for the purpose, then no amount of money will make a difference.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Disssident on 05/17/2008 09:00 PM
Further research of Casimir effect is a key point of success! Several milion $ are enough to prove that a propulsion, based on this "phenomena", is possible!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/17/2008 11:03 PM
Quote
hmh33 - 13/5/2008  6:30 AM

Quote
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.

EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop on 05/18/2008 12:12 AM
Quote
Nathan - 17/5/2008  4:03 PM
EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.
He claims to have a working prototype. He claims it doesn't violate conservation of momentum, but many experts disagree.

See http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html for various objections.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/18/2008 01:32 AM
Quote
hop - 18/5/2008  10:12 AM

Quote
Nathan - 17/5/2008  4:03 PM
EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.
He claims to have a working prototype. He claims it doesn't violate conservation of momentum, but many experts disagree.

See http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html for various objections.

His main challange is to prove that it is actually an open system and not a closed one - which he obviously hasn't done to anyone's satisfaction. I'm convinced by the video of the device actually moving. If it is a closed system then the particles are simply going to bounce around on the walls of the device. If it is truly an open system then he is on to something.

On the general thrust of this thread - NASA cannot throw money into wormhole research etc because the phycisists haven't figured out how to do that and no amount of money can make a difference. One the ideas are on a firm footing then they should be funded. Sails are a good option.
The EM-drive probably shouldn't be funded until there is a peer reviewed proof that it is an open system and can do what it says it does. That said, given that it has government funding and has produced what looks like a working prototype - it certainly cannot be dismissed quite so easily.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: tnphysics on 05/18/2008 02:24 AM
It is possible to perform propulsion with light as reaction mass.

But this requires a large energy input and the light is ejected.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 05/18/2008 07:36 PM
Quote
tnphysics - 17/5/2008  9:24 PM
It is possible to perform propulsion with light as reaction mass.
But this requires a large energy input and the light is ejected.

And also it requires 99.99999999% efficient energy-to-light conversion, if you don't want your ship to instantly vaporize.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: publiusr on 06/26/2008 06:02 PM
Thus the anti-matter photon drive--meant for starships of the far, far future.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop on 06/30/2008 07:47 AM
If you think this is all science fiction that's your privilege, but the peer reviewed experimental data showing that this is all possible with enough development effort put into it over the next 25-to-50 years is readily aviable on the web and elsewhere, like the American Institute of Physics (AIP) if you care to look for it. 
Uh-huh. If you are so confident about this, how about providing and actual link or citation ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 06/30/2008 12:40 PM
The only true way to make a starship is to be able to create a spacedrive that can modifiy gravity and/or inertia.  Everthing else talked about here except perhaps the EM drive is just for use on solar system scale missions.

I don't know what you mean by a "starship". but if you're willing to settle for slower travel times between stars (on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years), then chemical engines and gravity assists will do. You need the really advanced propulsion technologies, if you're attempting high travel speeds (significant fraction of the speed of light), then you'll need something special. My point here is that if you are willing to spend a lot of time, then current propulsion technologies are sufficient for traveling between the stars. It all depends on the profile of the trip.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 06/30/2008 02:04 PM
The only true way to make a starship is to be able to create a spacedrive that can modifiy gravity and/or inertia.  Everthing else talked about here except perhaps the EM drive is just for use on solar system scale missions. 

Gene Rodenberry pretty much nailed it when he created the Starship Enterprise that was equipped with inertia modification "impulse-drive" system for solar system based travels and a wormhole based "warp-drive" for interstellar jumps measured in days to weeks and not tens to hundreds of years for both the ship crew and the folks back home.  If any of you are curious how this might be done, we have to look at the confulence of General Relativity and Quntum Mechancis to first find the means to transiently modify the inertial properties of mass by manipulating its stored energy and bulk acceleration of that mass relative to the distant stars.  That Mach/Lorentz technology will provide us the Startrek like "impluse drive" we need to start down this path.  We then use this same "gravinertial" technology to create traversalble wormholes shortcuts through spacetime that our starships can use to star hop.   

If you think this is all science fiction that's your privilege, but the peer reviewed experimental data showing that this is all possible with enough development effort put into it over the next 25-to-50 years is readily aviable on the web and elsewhere, like the American Institute of Physics (AIP) if you care to look for it. 

Hmmm, so that's how the UFOs do it ! ;) Seriously though why are we bothering with Ares V if it's only 25 years away ? What's the catch ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 06/30/2008 02:48 PM
Last time I checked to establish a traversable wormhole you needed large amounts of negative mass, that unfortunately cannot be provided by antimatter. But maybe there have been recent breakthroughs.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 06/30/2008 10:47 PM
sandrot, you need negative curvature in a wormhole "handle" (maybe you can get by with a positive cosmological constant and a smaller nonnegative curvature) somewhere in your wormhole (it's a result out of topology). Negative mass-energy is a known way to do that. I don't know if it's required though. And who knows? We might be able to create wormholes, but not naked negative energy.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 04:28 AM
HOP:

Sure, try this one: http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000813000001001321000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
And if you want any more citations, let me know...

[...]


The part I like, is:

Quote from: March&Palfreyman

When Woodward's (2004a, 2004b, 2005) and our test results were compared with the model's predictions, the test results exceeded predictions by one to two orders of magnitude. Efforts are underway to understand the discrepancies and update the model.


Are March and Palfreyman going to be the Pons and Fleischmann of the 21st Century?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 04:31 AM
[...] See Dr. Harold White's following paper on Space-time metric engineering at the following link for details:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t52g457576w8m2x2/ 


The fact that something can be theorized doesn't mean it exists nor that it can be observed. There are tons of publications on string theory, for instance.

I wouldn't go around screaming that men in black are hiding the truth.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 04:58 AM
The money will go where there's money to be made. That's the way it works. This might not lead to the Star Trek world we all dream of.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/01/2008 05:07 AM
Agreed, sandrot.

The negative energy densities involved in opening a wormhole throat open are frightening. With current physics, you're talking about the equivalent negative mass / energy of something like a terrestrial planet. It ain't happening soon.

The Standard Model of physics doesn't explain everything, and it is probably not correct and will in time be superceded, just as Newtonian was superceded by Einsteinian physics. But at the moment, the discrepancies are tiny and whether or not it will enable FTL / reactionless drives / unicorns is unknown and unknowable. What is known is that all propellantless propulsion solutions are either pseduoscience or generate laughably miniscule amounts of thrust. That's why they are not throwing $$$$$$ at it. Ares I and V are engineering longshots as it is, and they are based on technology that is essentially "off the shelf."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/01/2008 11:55 AM
Khallow:

IMO multiple generation starships are out of the running since they would only be attempted by our current world governments out of a desparate need to survive as a race.  It's much better to think a bit more creatively and out of the current power and propulsion (P&P) box, and then put some development R&D resources into it to see what really can be done in this advnaced P&P venue.

Who said multigenerational? Extreme longevity (here, living long enough that the same crew can be used for the entire tens of thousands of years trip) is probably more feasible than some of the other ideas bounced around here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 01:04 PM
Sandrot:

[...] And when that happens, we will have signed our death warrants in the long term for when the next killer asteroid comes along, we still won't have enough of our civilization off this rock to survive. [...]

I am a little fed-up with catastrophism. Yes, I am a human-induced-global-warming skeptic.

Even if another Chicxulub event should happen tomorrow (figuratively speaking) I am not concerned for the future of humankind. As much as I like spaceflight I believe that we would not try to place survivors on the Moon or on Mars (maybe around the Earth?), but that we would invest our resources in building shelters.

It's more likely you'll see P&P advances when they can be applied to weapons.

Last time I checked it was the DoD that was interested in space based solar power.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 06:06 PM
Sandrot & Crew:

Ok, let's not be dramatic [...]


Good idea. I dropped participating to discussions over Direct because they're usually too emotional.

As Lampyridae points out, money will go where big thrust can be demonstrated. The next thing in line (i.e. where some money is being put) is VASIMR.

About other more exotic phenomena, there's not yet enough "critical mass" to get the things going. Experience from the past has shown that extraordinary claims were not followed by extraordinary evidence.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 07:30 PM
[...] As to what is unambiguous for most folks seem to fall around 1.0 Newton (101.971 gram-force) of force output at a minimum with preference being given to being able to levitate the test article into the conference hall.    

Not quite there. We didn't go to the Moon with those guys levitating coffee tables in the late 1800.

If you have the tastebuds for this kind of stuff, search through the countless patents awarded for antigravity generators. I wonder why my car isn't flying yet.

:)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: scienceguy on 07/01/2008 08:57 PM
Is sunlight strong enough out at Mars to power a VASIMR roundtrip?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/01/2008 09:19 PM
Yes, sunlight is half the intensity at Earth. It does mean that you do have half the thrust that you would at Earth. But I don't believe this is a significant problem. The main effect is to enlarge somewhat the configuration space for which fission power is superior to solar power.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/02/2008 03:31 AM
Is sunlight strong enough out at Mars to power a VASIMR roundtrip?

A VASIMR spacecraft for Mars could have approximately twice the area of solar cells that a Moon spacecraft has.  Alternatively the route could be planned so that the spacecraft spends about twice as much time near Mars than Earth or a mixture of both.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop on 07/02/2008 04:50 AM
Sandrot & Crew:
... that several possible solutions to the Propellantless Propulsion question might be available if we are willing to work with it.
Emphasis added. Possible. No one is saying that we shouldn't research far out ideas. However, it is also possible that none of them will pan out. The field is littered with hucksters and kooks, but not much in the way of real results. This is a long way from your earlier claim that we just need 25-50 years of hard work.

Sure, warp drives would be great, but reality has a tendency not to give a crud what you wish for.

Completely disregarding the physics (and I freely admit I don't have the education to evaluate many of the proposed mechanisms), IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 07/02/2008 02:31 PM
nice overview about most current good ideas for propellantless field propulsion:

http://www.earthtech.org/publications/Robertson-Murad-Davis_ECM_49_3.pdf
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/02/2008 06:45 PM
One of the reasons this exotic physics effects are always so small, and so negligible in providing us large thrust, is that if they were bigger they would have been noticed before, questioning currently widely accepted models.

This makes me think that it's unlikely we will see a real breakthrough.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/02/2008 06:48 PM
[...] IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.

One possible explanation is that actually aliens are all over, they don't use radio signals to communicate and they abide to Prime Directive.

This explanation fails Occam's Razor, but that's another story.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cpcjr on 07/02/2008 07:26 PM
[...] IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.

One possible explanation is that actually aliens are all over, they don't use radio signals to communicate and they abide to Prime Directive.

This explanation fails Occam's Razor, but that's another story.

The simplest explanation and thus the one that fits Occam's Razor the best is that ET's do not exist. This is supported by our observation of other star systems that tend to show large planets extreamly  close to their stars.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: nacnud on 07/02/2008 07:32 PM
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cpcjr on 07/03/2008 12:19 AM
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.

I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone.

I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. ti
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/03/2008 01:53 AM
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.

I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone.

I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. ti

Hot jupiters only appear in about 5% of all stars surveyed. There are plenty of giant planets in habitable zones that could host multiple terrestrial-sized moons. Take HD 82493 b for example:

http://www.extrasolar.net/planettour.asp?PlanetID=131

Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/03/2008 02:26 AM
[...]
Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.

As long as these giant planets in habitable zones don't sport a nasty radiation environment as our own Jupiter, you might be right.

Guys, we're OT.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/03/2008 04:13 AM
[...]
Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.

As long as these giant planets in habitable zones don't sport a nasty radiation environment as our own Jupiter, you might be right.

Guys, we're OT.

Agreed. Extrasolar planets needs its own thread. I don't think that interstellar travel is all that difficult; a metallic solar sail launched from 0.1 AU would reach 0.01c.

I think one of the promising areas of tech for the 21st century is in materials science and lasers. A laser beam's energy can be bounced back and forth many times to get more thrust per watt of beam power, for example. Metamaterials are enabling previously "impossible" areas like negative refractive indexes, which could open areas of monumental impact on beamed propulsion.

While I would love to see a propellantless propulsion system that could thrust at even milli-G levels, the sad truth is that most of them produce levels of thrust that are almost indistinguishable from experimental noise. Propellantless propulsion is going to demand advances from both physics, to explain what the heck is going on, and materials sciences, so that we can build the structure to the required tolerances, whatever they may be.

One field I am also hoping to see more of is from Heim theory and superconductors. If correct, then this could be a real flying-saucer-zip-off-into-space drive. At the current time we can (although it is highly disputed) make an artificial gravity gradient with rotating superconductors, as mentioned in the PDF reference. I find that highly encouraging.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 07/03/2008 10:27 AM

That's only becuse you've cut the search for a solution off at the pass before even trying.  For instance, the latest Excel spreadsheet tool we've developed for Woodward's MLT over the last seven months, based primarily on electrical and mechancial engneering issues, has over 100 controlling variables that have to be in "just so" relation to each other to get a predictied thrust of any appreciable value.  And by appreicable value I mean in the hundreds to thousands of Newtons instead of micro-Newtons where most of the possible solutions end up.  We hope to have an experimental verification of these latest MLT predictions later on this year, but the main point here is that with so many controlling variables, getting one of these PFP devices to run correctly and efficiently is like trying to balance a broom on your finger tip, in the dark.  It isn't easy, but it's NOT impossible!


So the work on the MLT's didn't cease last year. I had not seen one paper or presentation (STAIF) about MLTs in the last year so I thought the development effort died off during the last year. Thankfully thats not the case.

Quote
BTW, this thread is also suppose to be about space applications of PFP drives if anyone was so bold as to actually build one.  Did any of you download and read the MLT application paper by March on his Warpstar concept Lunar vehicle?  Now that puppy would be paradigm changing, (From the Earth to the Moon and back again in less than 12 hours and that's loafing.), and it's just the first step once its basic 22,500 Newton Mach-Lorentz Thruster module is in the bag...

Sure. I have read the AIAA-houston pdf about the lunar shuttle. Link:  http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/alt.php  It's the first paper "AIAA Jan07 Horizons" on the page. By the way the other papers are not bad either. ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cpcjr on 07/03/2008 02:57 PM
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.

I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone.

I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. ti

Hot jupiters only appear in about 5% of all stars surveyed. There are plenty of giant planets in habitable zones that could host multiple terrestrial-sized moons. Take HD 82493 b for example:

http://www.extrasolar.net/planettour.asp?PlanetID=131

I was referring to more than just hot Jupiters. My point was that most of the planets that have been detected  are large and in orbits that would eliminate any Earth size planets in the habitable zone.

Quote
Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.

No such moon is known to exists and the radiation environment around a gas giant would probably render it uninhabitable. Not only that but the tidal environment could also be a problem.

To try to move things back on to topic. The original comment was that lack of ET contact could mean that interstellar travel is extremely difficult. My point was since current observation are most consistent with ETs  not exiting to be contacted, that  lack of ET contact means nothing for the feasibility interstellar travel, field drives, warp drives or any other form of dream propulsion system.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: synchrotron on 07/04/2008 02:14 PM
mboeller:

The MLT R&D is very much alive, but this work is currently in the oven, so I see no point in publishing papers that cost ~$1,500 a pop for the author unless there is something major to document for the community.  We are also pursuing a more basic experimental series that we hope will demonstrate conclusively the existence of Woodward’s conjectured mass fluctuations using rotary induced centripetal acceleration as the bulk acceleration variable, along with charging and discharging a set of ceramic capacitors at 40 kHz.  Initial results for this test series appear to be positive, but we are currently characterizing and quantifying the error sources in the experiment to make sure we just aren’t looking at garbage.

Charging and discharging of ceramic capacitors at 40 kHz has what to do with validating mass fluctuations?  What does 40 kHz have to do with anything?  Why specify ceramic?  Is this just smoke and mirrors like it appears?  What measurand are you quantifying?  What measurement approach are you using?  How do you establish statistical significance of your measurements?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/06/2008 01:19 PM
@Star-Drive,

What I don't understand exactly is this notion of a gravito-electric wave. It seems to be present in a lot of other theories; what exactly is the basis for this? Their similarity as fields?

The other thing I'd like to know is what would need to be known for a workable MLT. Is it a matter of materials science, such as high-K dielectrics, or more getting that sweet speet of 100s of variables? In short, how possible is it that an MLT if possible, would be able to generate ~1G of thrust?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/06/2008 10:01 PM

OK, now you asked about what gravitoelectric waves were and as best I can determine, and I’m not the expert to consult here, gravitoelectric waves are spacetime compression waves in the G/I field and are the primary momentum carriers for inertial forces.  However you must remember that these gravinertial compression waves use radiation reaction effects to convey their momentum from the particle to the field and back and therefore their transit times from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe is nearly instantaneous.

This is a violation of the general relativity model which is well supported at the macroscopic (non-quantum) scale in the known universe. Plus, in a number of theories that combine gravity and EM (for example,  the usual Maxwell's equations in a general relavity spacetime and the original 5 dimension Kaluza Klein models), photons are a special case of gravitoelectric waves and of course propagate at the speed of light.

Edit: Let me correct myself here. Photons, because they are massless don't have a compression wave component. But I think my take still works since the compression wave component is just part of a greater wave structure. And a significant part of that is known to travel exact at the speed of light.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/07/2008 12:46 AM
Thanks, Star-Drive. This is very interesting stuff... I must admit that I am guilty of just skimming over equations instead of trying to understand them (I particularly detest matrices), but these are with a good attempt to cogitate (NO!! my brain screams in protest.) I had read about the radiation-inertial theory before, but I'd only seen it tested without a capacitor, i.e. using instantaneous acceleration only. The results were quite marginal.

This is a question created in deepest ignorance... is it absolutely necessary to have a capacitor? As I understand it, what is most important is energy density in the "reaction mass." Would making population inversions also result in a transient mass fluctuation? Would it be of sufficient density to be useful?

"However, as a certain LM/Fort Worth scientist is fond of saying; “Follow the data, theory be dammed!”"

A good philosophy if ever I heard one.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/10/2008 03:58 AM
So, the mass fluctuation is a result of the ion accelerations in the capacitor, right?

So, a particle is accelerated in the +X direction pretty fast, gaining mass. Meantime, it is accelerated in the +y direction for impulse. When +x acceleration starts to decrease, -y reverses.

Y
|
|                                 
|                          3
|           2                        4
|_1_________________________5  X

So there's 2 B field pulses for every 1 discharge. Or is it 1:1? I saw 2omega and 1omega being used that way in the theory part.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/11/2008 09:05 AM
khallow:

I'll let you argue with the folks like John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, (well that might be a tad hard since both gentlemen are dead), but have at with John Cramer (Washington State U) about his Transactional QM thesis over whether energy can be transferred at effectively superluminal speeds or not, but either inertia is a Machian effect which requires at a minimum local (sub-luminal) energy transfers between the accelerated mass and the preexisting gravinertial field and/or it’s a "spooky action at a distance" momentum transfer between the locally accelerated mass and all the rest of the mass in the universe via wormhole like momentum transfers.  If you think QM’s “local” quantum vacuum fluctuation approach is a better model for these types of inertial interactions OK, a case can be made for that view as well, though Woodward regularly shoots down that case in his papers.  Oh yes, and some other folks think that the QVF is driven by background instantaneous QM entanglements between mass elements, so then we are right back conflicting with your no FTL transactions edict, so let me direct you to another one of Woodward's tutorials on this tpoic: http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm

Woodward is of the opinion that this argument will not be settled until there is a viable quantum gravity theory brought forth, experimentally verified, and accepted by the physics community, but until then we have to make do with the overlapping and conflicting views of GRT, QM and the conservation laws as our only guides if we want to make any progress in this field.  However, as a certain LM/Fort Worth scientist is fond of saying; “Follow the data, theory be dammed!”  Being more of an engineer than scientist this is my view as well.  And our ten plus years of data says that there are mass fluctuations or QVF LIKE effects available to be engineered, so we press on.

Two things. First, traditional quantum mechanics is not machian. An observation is not just dependent on initial state, but also on final state. In other words, you start up an experiment, you let it evolve, then you observe it, collapsing the system in the process.

Second, such things as "wormhole like momentum transfers" and "background instantaneous QM entanglements between mass elements" are artifacts of the models not of reality. They also appear crudely equivalent for what that's worth. Perhaps this is an indication of some real faster than light exchange of information which is the necessary precondition for any interesting FTL effects, but we haven't actually observed such effects. In particular, the mass fluctuations which Woodward and perhaps others seek, may not exist in the observable world.

Finally, I see no point to arguing with Wheeler or Feynman. The standard general relativity model doesn't have instantaneous gravity effects. Their opinions won't change that. Everything interacts at the speed of light. Real world may be different, but as mentioned above  we need observation of these effects. Woodward's efforts here do not seem sufficient. We need extraordinary results for extraordinary claims.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/12/2008 12:46 AM
Khallow:

Well, you've given us the reasons why you think propellantless propulsion (P-P) can't work, so do you have any contributions to this forum on how P-P could be made to work, or are you just content with the status quo? 

BTW, we do have tentative data supporting the existence of mass fluctuation like signals.  However from your previous comments, I have to assume that the P-P test article will have to levitate under its own power before you will concede that there MIGHT be something interesting going on... 

I mentioned three propellantless methods on the first page. Aerobraking, gravity assists, and a conducting ring circling one of Earth's magnetic poles while generating an opposing magnetic field. We also have light sails, light propulsion, and various tricks for using EM fields and plasmas to deflect the solar wind. Aside from aerobraking these are all field-based. Contribution has been established.

Here's my problem. I see a scattering of hypothetical propulsion methods in this thread. Most don't actually have significant experimental evidence of any net force exerted. Even if we ignore all that, how are these methods going to generate more force for power consumed than light propulsion? That is, light propulsion seems to me to be the cap on the best thrust for power that you can get for a massless propulsion system.

With these fancier systems, you still have to explain why go through the effort? What's the advantages of these other methods?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/12/2008 07:07 AM
Quote
  It doesn't buy us what we really need IMO and that is interstellar flight with effective flight velocities greater than c.

Just because we "need" it doesn't mean we can get it. There's no evidence for FTL. Similarly, while we might be able to work the Casimir effect into some way to tap vacuum energy, we don't really have a plan for that either. From what I understand, it appears that a big problem with the attempts outlined in this thread to exploit "gravinertial" fluctuations (or whatever they're called) depends on the attempt (some sort of oscillation of a capacitor I gather) being quantum correlated with the fluctuation. There's no reason from our experimental evidence to assume one can do that. Even if you can, that's a long way from tapping vacuum energy or FTL.

[March 16,2009] Edit: Fixing only the quote tags since they were broken in a very ugly way.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: scienceguy on 07/12/2008 10:05 PM
Here's something I posted before about wornholes: the papers mentioned are worth looking into.

Note the Visser paper mentions that wormholes are possible with arbitrarily small energy condition violations. The Casimir Effect is an energy condition violation, bigger than arbitrarily small.

Wormholes and the Casimir Effect

Both Visser et. al. (2003) and Morris et. al. (1988) have done calculations about wormholes. Apparently they are possible only using the Casimir Effect, which is a small energy condition violation.

The amount of negative energy generated by the Casimir Effect depends on the distance between the metal plates and a value for the vacuum energy density. Vacuum energy density values range from 0 to 10^92 kg/m^3 (Weinberg, 1989). More recent estimates place the value between 10^19 kg/m^3 to 10^53 kg/m^3 (NASA). I will be assuming that the vacuum energy density is 10^19 kg/m^3. This is a conservative yet reasonable estimate.

If one has 2 perfectly flat metal plates each say 1 m x 1 m x 10nm, and these are placed so they are some small distance apart, say 1nm from surface to surface, these plates will produce the Casimir Effect. The Casimir Effect is a phenomenon where wavelengths of light produced by the vacuum energy are excluded from existing between the two plates because their wavelengths are longer than the distance between the plates. Since longer wavelengths of light have less energy than shorter wavelengths, most of the vacuum energy remains between the plates.

However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy in a vacuum from between the plates, that 1% would still amount to 10^17 kg/m^3. This 10^17 kg/m^3 is now the difference in energy from the normal vacuum energy density and that which is allowed between the plates. This is a negative energy density. Because there is only 1 m x 1 m x 1 nm of volume between the plates, this amounts to 10^-9 m^3 between the plates. Thus, per m^2, we have:

10^17 kg/m^3 x 10^-9 m^3 = 10^8 kg/m^2.

Conservation of Energy

I will base the following calculations on the law of conservation of energy and assume a 100% efficient wormhole. Note that the energy for these traverses of distance comes from the vacuum energy density.

To send 10^3 kg to Mars in sqrt(2) seconds, the energy required would be:

x = ½ at^2

a = 2x/t^2 = 2 * (10^10 m)/ (sqrt(2) s)^2 = 10^10 m/s^2

m = 10^3 kg

F = ma = (10^3 kg)(10^10 m/s^2) = 10^13 N

W = Fx = (10^13 N)(10^10 m) = 10^23 J

Converting the energy required into kg of negative mass, we have

E = mc^2   m = E/c^2 = 10^23 J/10^17 m^2/s^2 = 10^6 kg

Thus 10^6 kg of negative mass is required.

Thus, using Casimir Effect metal plates separated by 1 nm to generate that negative mass, the area of metal plates would need to be:

10^6 kg/ 10^8 kg/m^2 = 10^-2 m^2 or 10^2 cm^2

This can be achieved with a 1 cm wide Casimir Effect metal ring with a circumference of 100 cm, or a radius of 16 cm.

Even Further

If we were to use this same method to travel to the nearby star epsilon Eridani (10.5 ly or 10^17 m away), we can figure out how much area of metal plates we would need. We will again base the calculation on the assumption that it takes sqrt(2) seconds to traverse the wormhole.

a = 2x/t^2 = 2 * (10^17m)/(sqrt(2) s)^2 = 10^17 m/s^2

F = ma = (10^3 kg)(10^17 m) = 10^20 N

W = Fx = (10^20 N)(10^17 m) = 10^37 J

E = mc^2   m = E/c^2 = 10^37 J/10^17 m^2/s^2 = 10^20 kg

Thus 10^20 kg of negative mass is required.

10^20 kg/10^8 kg/m^2 = 10^12 m^2 or 10^6 km^2

Thus, in order to travel almost instantaneously via a wormhole to epsilon Eridani, we would need 10^6 km^2 of Casimir Effect metal, or an open metal cylinder with height 100 km long and a circumference of 10^4 km or a radius of 1600 km.

References

Morris, M., Thorne, K. and Yurtsever, U. (1988) Wormholes Time Machines and the Weak Energy Condition. Physical Review 61 (13):1446-1449

Visser, M., Kar, S., and Dadhich, N. (2003) Traversable Wormholes with Arbitrarily Small Energy Condition Violations. Physical Review Letters 90 (20): 201102

Weinberg, S. (1989) The Cosmological Constant Problem. Reviews of Modern Physics 61 (1): 1-23

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/possible.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: scienceguy on 07/12/2008 10:24 PM
I don't know the math for this, but it seems that the Casimir Effect can be increased by Landau Damping of the light waves popping in and out of existence. Landau Damping is a phenomenon whereby particles can be slowed down by giving energy to light waves or sped up by taking energy from light waves. Electrons in an element are moving around at near the speed of light, so they should be able to take energy from light waves popping in and out of existence, increasing the wavelength of those light waves, so they will be excluded from existing between the plates because their wavelengths are longer, increasing the Casimir Effect. The Landau Damping I'm guessing might work best if a metal with lots of electrons in its outer shells were used, like Platinum or Iridium. Does anyone here know whether electrons move faster in a metal if the metal is heated?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 07/12/2008 11:27 PM
Here's something I posted before about wornholes: the papers mentioned are worth looking into.

Note the Visser paper mentions that wormholes are possible with arbitrarily small energy condition violations. The Casimir Effect is an energy condition violation, bigger than arbitrarily small.

Wormholes and the Casimir Effect

Both Visser et. al. (2003) and Morris et. al. (1988) have done calculations about wormholes. Apparently they are possible only using the Casimir Effect, which is a small energy condition violation.

The amount of negative energy generated by the Casimir Effect depends on the distance between the metal plates and a value for the vacuum energy density. Vacuum energy density values range from 0 to 10^92 kg/m^3 (Weinberg, 1989). More recent estimates place the value between 10^19 kg/m^3 to 10^53 kg/m^3 (NASA). I will be assuming that the vacuum energy density is 10^19 kg/m^3. This is a conservative yet reasonable estimate.

If one has 2 perfectly flat metal plates each say 1 m x 1 m x 10nm, and these are placed so they are some small distance apart, say 1nm from surface to surface, these plates will produce the Casimir Effect.
...
However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy in a vacuum from between the plates, that 1% would still amount to 10^17 kg/m^3.

10^17 kg/m^3 is almost unimaginably large amount of energy.

I replied to your earlier post that many people moved metal plates to these distances, do I have to believe they all somehow missed several quadrazillion megatons of TNT released in the process?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: scienceguy on 07/12/2008 11:51 PM
Here's something I posted before about wornholes: the papers mentioned are worth looking into.

Note the Visser paper mentions that wormholes are possible with arbitrarily small energy condition violations. The Casimir Effect is an energy condition violation, bigger than arbitrarily small.

Wormholes and the Casimir Effect

Both Visser et. al. (2003) and Morris et. al. (1988) have done calculations about wormholes. Apparently they are possible only using the Casimir Effect, which is a small energy condition violation.

The amount of negative energy generated by the Casimir Effect depends on the distance between the metal plates and a value for the vacuum energy density. Vacuum energy density values range from 0 to 10^92 kg/m^3 (Weinberg, 1989). More recent estimates place the value between 10^19 kg/m^3 to 10^53 kg/m^3 (NASA). I will be assuming that the vacuum energy density is 10^19 kg/m^3. This is a conservative yet reasonable estimate.

If one has 2 perfectly flat metal plates each say 1 m x 1 m x 10nm, and these are placed so they are some small distance apart, say 1nm from surface to surface, these plates will produce the Casimir Effect.
...
However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy in a vacuum from between the plates, that 1% would still amount to 10^17 kg/m^3.

10^17 kg/m^3 is almost unimaginably large amount of energy.

I replied to your earlier post that many people moved metal plates to these distances, do I have to believe they all somehow missed several quadrazillion megatons of TNT released in the process?

Indeed. It depends on what the vacuum energy density is. However, as far as I know, no one has made metal plates exhibiting the Casimir Effect in a circle...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 07/13/2008 12:53 AM
I replied to your earlier post that many people moved metal plates to these distances, do I have to believe they all somehow missed several quadrazillion megatons of TNT released in the process?

Indeed. It depends on what the vacuum energy density is. However, as far as I know, no one has made metal plates exhibiting the Casimir Effect in a circle...

The problem here, as I ses it, that we don't know yet quantum physics well enough. Without that, making an assumplions like "However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy..." is far too unreliable. What if Casimir Effect excludes only 10^-17 % ? Or, a more useful question: at the distance of N nm, how many % are excluded?

Theory cannot answer that, partly because we intrude into this small dark corner where today's quantum physics hides its inability to calculate the "naked" electron charge and the like. QED formulae give nonsensical answer which is a diverging series. This can be ignored (cheated) if we want to calculate measurable effects _relative_ to_ vacuum_ energy_, but if we want to calculate that energy itself, we need to fix QED to stop giving us nonsense. String theory tries to do it, as do others, but so far no conclusive results...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/13/2008 10:54 PM
Karl:

No evidence of FTL, if you would bother to look, there is plenty of credible experimental data that says differently.  Oh well, I guess there's not much point in discussing this topic with you since you have already made up your mind and tossed it in the trash can.  Have fun with your rockets and electric motors...

I disagree. There simply isn't plenty of credible evidence. There's a lot of weird quantum effects which routinely get misinterpreted as evidence of particles moving faster than light. But the only thing that counts as evidence here of FTL is moving information from one place to another faster than the speed of light. That hasn't happened yet.

As for changing minds, it's irrational and unscientific to just change one's mind for the sake of changing one's mind. New relevant information has to be revealed first. I'm sorry, but you haven't delivered new information (with respect to FTL) on which to base a change of mind.

My take is that any FTL effect is going to be rather hard to find else we would have seen it already. The low lying fruit has been picked.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/14/2008 01:54 AM

My take is that any FTL effect is going to be rather hard to find else we would have seen it already. The low lying fruit has been picked.


Low lying fruit such as travelling faster than light with our current technology and theory? Chemical rockets, which have been around for a thousand years? All of our high-energy efforts have been around accelerating ions and smashing them into things. Quantum physics has evolved because we have been doing that in labs. Maxwell's therorems have been expanded upon because they've been experimented with (such as varying particle acceleration). Relativity, on the other hand, hasn't changed since a certain postal worker wondered about it. It's only been confirmed... but now there are lots unanswered questions starting to pop up - like inflation and slingshot effect. And inertia is still just "becuase it's there."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/14/2008 06:43 AM

My take is that any FTL effect is going to be rather hard to find else we would have seen it already. The low lying fruit has been picked.


Low lying fruit such as travelling faster than light with our current technology and theory? Chemical rockets, which have been around for a thousand years? All of our high-energy efforts have been around accelerating ions and smashing them into things. Quantum physics has evolved because we have been doing that in labs. Maxwell's therorems have been expanded upon because they've been experimented with (such as varying particle acceleration). Relativity, on the other hand, hasn't changed since a certain postal worker wondered about it. It's only been confirmed... but now there are lots unanswered questions starting to pop up - like inflation and slingshot effect. And inertia is still just "becuase it's there."

The thing to keep in mind is that slamming particles together at high energies explores a lot of the space of particle interactions and propagation. For example, it was enough to find all but one particle (the Higg's Boson) in the "Standard Model" which is the 70's era theory that unified the EM, strong, and weak forces. There are large zones of ignorance at high energies and with the interaction with gravity (and even the large scale curvature of the universe). Sure it is possible some FTL effect operates in this region, but is somehow hidden to us now, but my opinion is that it would manifest in the fundamental theory somehow.

Second,  speaking of a thousand years of rockets ignores, that until the early 20th century, rockets hadn't changed much except for improvements in solid fuel composition. The last 70 years was vastly different from the first 900+ years. Now, many rockets (for example, the SSMEs) operate near their theoretical best performance.

There's no reason to be so disrespectful of relativity. Relativity has been worked on quite a bit in the last century. For example, General Relativity came out in the mid 1910's along with the first exact solution due to Schwarzschild). Nuclear weapons were a consequence of the mass-energy relationship (E=mc^2) revealed by special relativity. Black holes were hypothesized in 1950 and continue to be refined. We've since discovered a number of black holes (well objects of the necessary density) including several at the center of our galaxy (the big one at the center and several much smaller ones orbiting it).

Antimatter is the consequence of a quantum mechanics equation for the electron derived from the energy equation in special relativity (E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2). Dirac solved it for the electron, but it required a positive charged counterpart to the electron (now called the positron). This is also the first instance of a new category of quantum theory called "quantum field theory". String theory, the Standard Model, and a number of other relatively well-known theories (for example, quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics) come out of this as well.

In addition to the theoretical consequences of the theory, there has been repeated testing of general relativity over many years. It's surprisingly successful.

Finally, I don't see any reason inertia will be explained better than it currently is. "Because it's there" is an undescriptive truism for phenomena, but that's fundamentally what reality gives you.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
In particular the single photon or electron experiments show nonlocality in BOTH space and time.

The experiment above is one of several quantum tunneling experiments falsely interpreted as demonstrating faster than light transfer of information. Nonlocality isn't sufficient for FTL. Even if part of the wave packet sometimes arrives early (in the context of the experiment), it doesn't happen in a way that can transfer information faster than the speed of light.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/14/2008 07:07 AM
I don't know about virtual photons violating relativity. They are more the product of quantum mechanics and the figleafs used to sort out problems with it. Until a signal is actually sent faster than light, then I don't think quantum tunneling would be of any use. I have however seen some crackpot theories that talk about getting a craft to behave as a single electron (involving use of a Bose-Einstein Condensate) and get the whole thing to quantum tunnel all the way to Alpha Centauri.

As far as I know only the Germans are actively involved in FTL quantum tunneling research, or take it remotely seriously. However, it might actually provide a usable means of interstellar travel that could be done with 21st century technology so I won't discount it. I might give that Nimtz guy's papers a closer look.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/14/2008 07:19 AM

In addition to the theoretical consequences of the theory, there has been repeated testing of general relativity over many years. It's surprisingly successful.

Finally, I don't see any reason inertia will be explained better than it currently is. "Because it's there" is an undescriptive truism for phenomena, but that's fundamentally what reality gives you.

I doubt inertia is "just there." I "feel" it has to be governed by rules, whatever they are. It was thought that the speed of light was "just there" and yet recently it's being found that it has varied. Space itself is expanding, as well (according to the relativistic view of expansion).

Now, have you any explanation for the MLT's exerted thrust in a vacuum?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/14/2008 09:06 AM

In addition to the theoretical consequences of the theory, there has been repeated testing of general relativity over many years. It's surprisingly successful.

Finally, I don't see any reason inertia will be explained better than it currently is. "Because it's there" is an undescriptive truism for phenomena, but that's fundamentally what reality gives you.

I doubt inertia is "just there." I "feel" it has to be governed by rules, whatever they are. It was thought that the speed of light was "just there" and yet recently it's being found that it has varied. Space itself is expanding, as well (according to the relativistic view of expansion).

Now, have you any explanation for the MLT's exerted thrust in a vacuum?

What was allegedly found to vary was the fine structure constant which is dependent on several things including the speed of light, charge of an electron, and Planck's constant and all which are traditionally considered constant throughout space. I don't know what is the current state of this work. The expansion of space, if it is occuring, is consistent with a general relativity explanation via the "cosmological constant".

Second, it's very easy to break a vacuum especially if you have high voltages in your system. Any charge leakage or arcing would release some charged particles that you could use as propellant. That would be my first guess for an MLT having thrust in vacuum.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/15/2008 12:34 AM
What was allegedly found to vary was the fine structure constant which is dependent on several things including the speed of light, charge of an electron, and Planck's constant and all which are traditionally considered constant throughout space. I don't know what is the current state of this work. The expansion of space, if it is occuring, is consistent with a general relativity explanation via the "cosmological constant".

Second, it's very easy to break a vacuum especially if you have high voltages in your system. Any charge leakage or arcing would release some charged particles that you could use as propellant. That would be my first guess for an MLT having thrust in vacuum.


As I understand it, the "cosmological constant" was derived by asking astronomers about universal expansion, which they assumed to be stationary. Einstein chucked it out when galaxies were discovered to be redshifted. It's a finicky problem and is not at all compatible with QM computations of vacuum energy (a huge positive sign is required to cancel it because of supersymmetry, etc.)

The charged particle argument has many holes. The voltages are not high enough to cause vacuum arcing. There would be a significant difference in thrust levels between in-air testing and vacuum testing. Arcing would be visible, and produce burn marks. Likewise coronal discharges would be visible. Mass loss would be in evidence. Thrust levels are comparable to dedicated ion thrusters without being specifically designed for it. The capacitors are mounted at right angles; electrostatic acceleration is sideways and would produce rotational force; the B-field would cause the charged particles to spiral outwards in all directions, nullifying thrust. Finally, thrust would be in evidence without the action of the piezolectrics (which by the way has been tested and found not to occur). I could go on, but I think that's enough.

I'm not convinced by the Mach effect; I really would like to see an apparatus levitating into the conference hall. Even then there would be many ruffled academics crying "fraud!" and "heresy!" Who cares whether it's Mach effect or Unruh effect, if it makes thrust and ejects no propellant at a rate better than a photon thruster it certainly gets my vote.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danderman on 07/16/2008 02:16 AM
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
How much?

My understanding is that the Lightcraft system would require the entire energy output of the USA to put a Mercury spacecraft mass into orbit. That would cost some $$$$.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/16/2008 06:08 AM
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
How much?

My understanding is that the Lightcraft system would require the entire energy output of the USA to put a Mercury spacecraft mass into orbit. That would cost some $$$$.


Not quite... using onboard LH2 a 3 tonne spacecraft (Mercury sized) could be orbited with ~3GW of laser power. Depending on conversion efficiencies that would use about 15GW; or as little as 5GW for some modern diode lasers. Assuming 30c per KWh (nuclear power) that is a maximum of $7.5M worth of electricity, going down to as little $600 000 with cheap juice and efficient lasers.

As for the lightcraft that uses lasers to superheat air as reaction mass; I really don't know how much electricity it uses. I know a smallish laser was used to propel ~100gm test articles.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Big Al on 07/19/2008 07:11 PM

How about trying an Inertial Dive Unit? Since these things are mechanical in nature, they should be easy to engineer and test. There are many patents for this type of machine, but nothing in the way of operating machinery that I know of.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChevalierGuard on 07/26/2008 04:29 AM
The primary focus of these endeavors should be the creation of a star drive.  If not superluminal at least 80% the speed of light, which when taking consideration of the human lifespan, would allow exploration of nearby star systems.

Interesting physics, such as, zero point energy, negative energy, action at a distance, quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation exist and is a fact. It is applying what we know, and developing engineering technology to access and control these physical phenomena.  Zero point energy can theoretically be accessed but the technology doesn't exist to harness it.  Negative energy has been created in the laboratory, but no viable use is present.

A Manhattan type of endeavor is required to create and develop the technologies at a mature level in order to produce the star drive.  This means Mega funding and choosing the right people.  People who have vision, young and old, and are dedicated to the problem. Not nine to five types or Academic stars.  Also, this project will require help from American companies with specialized engineering skills when new technology is created or maturing.

Considering some computer models of drive systems, a presence on the moon may be required to test these novel technologies. 

To create a star drive requires teamwork, dedication, vision, and risk taking.

thank you for your time,
CG



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/27/2008 05:52 AM
We need to have a usable effect first. No one has extracted energy from zero point energy (and according to many theories, you can't). Energy (at least according to what we know) can't be created or destroyed. And the various manifestations of quantum correlation like entanglement, action at a distance, quantum teleportation, etc don't give us either a way to go faster or an energy source aside from what we know.

Here's how I see it. While a design for a usable star drive would be interesting, it doesn't solve any of the big problems with current space development. Namely, it doesn't make Earth to orbit cheaper, it doesn't greatly expand business opportunities in space, or help people live in space. It certainly doesn't justify spending tens of billions of dollars (the equivalent of a Manhattan Project).

Second, it seems to me far easier to focus on increasng human lifespan rather than working on traveling 80% of the speed of light. The latter requires considerable energy. Currently, we don't have a way to store or use that energy. I take into account  zero point energy, antimatter, and black holes (none of which we can harness in any serious way). Nothing else, that I currently know of, would have the necessary energy density).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 07/27/2008 12:37 PM
The primary focus of these endeavors should be the creation of a star drive.  If not superluminal at least 80% the speed of light, which when taking consideration of the human lifespan, would allow exploration of nearby star systems.

Setting unrealistic goals like this is a perfect way to spend heaps of money with no result at all.

Quote
Interesting physics, such as, zero point energy, negative energy, action at a distance, quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation exist and is a fact.

From what I know, it's much worse than that. Only zero point energy and quantum entanglement are known to exist, the rest is at the bleeding edge (i.e. it may turn out to not exist/not work at all).

Quote
A Manhattan type of endeavor is required to create and develop the technologies at a mature level in order to produce the star drive.

Manhattan project was based on a relatively well known (by that time) physics and was solving mostly technological problems (which were very difficult). For "star drive" project to be even possible, we need to research physics first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChevalierGuard on 07/28/2008 01:01 AM
Good Evening Gentlemen... Interesting answers to say the least... 

Let's clarify the physics,

Real Physics not SCIFI.

a) negative energy has been created in the lab (Fact);
b) Teleportation at the atomic level has been achieved (Bell Labs)
c)Laser Wakefield beams have been created (accelerators the size of table tops) Naval Research Lab TeraWatt level..
Virtual particles created based on Quantum Electrodynamics confirmed.
d)Quantum entanglement at a huge distance (Experiment verified and confirmed Los Alamos)
e)Antimatter confinement possible though hugely expensive at the moment.  Antihydrogen has been made..
f) Zero point energy confirmed; huge technological barrier due to thermodynamic leakage.
g)matter beam amplification thru bose einstein condensate experimentally confirmed..
h) theta pinch plasma drive under development (NASA)...

Some computer models show that metric can be manipulated.  However, tremendous energy is required.

Profitability:
a) Every dollar spent would have a return similar to the Apollo program.
b)The materials, engineering services, support infrastructure, etc would drive the economy.
c) If star drive built, and habitable planets found  with Terrestial Planet Finder, economic stimulus would be huge.  Remember history, ships sent out to Americas, China, Japan, for spices, gold and goods? Unimaginable wealth.
d) Unforseen benefits..

The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program has somewhat separated the crackpots from the real investigators. 

Gentleman, our govt has spent billions on reduntant equipment, causes, and wars. 
A five pound grey piece of flesh named Von Braun took us to the moon, another lump open the way we look at the universe Mr Einstein, and two lumps gave us airplanes.

By the way, not all scientists were convinced that the first Atomic Bomb wouldn't cause a chain reaction to destroy the world.  Leap of Faith?

Thank you for your time,

CG
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 07/28/2008 07:28 AM
a) negative energy has been created in the lab (Fact);

Link?

Quote
b) Teleportation at the atomic level has been achieved (Bell Labs)

IIRC it basically transferred quantum state from one atom to another, with speed of less than c - so what does it give us? I don't doubt usefulness of this research, but it does not show something extraordinary (FTL travel or similar). Again, link?

Quote
c)Laser Wakefield beams have been created (accelerators the size of table tops) Naval Research Lab TeraWatt level..
Virtual particles created based on Quantum Electrodynamics confirmed.
d)Quantum entanglement at a huge distance (Experiment verified and confirmed Los Alamos)
e)Antimatter confinement possible though hugely expensive at the moment.  Antihydrogen has been made..
g)matter beam amplification thru bose einstein condensate experimentally confirmed..

None of the above looks like "star drive enabler" to me (although it may be a part of it).

Quote
f) Zero point energy confirmed; huge technological barrier due to thermodynamic leakage.
h) theta pinch plasma drive under development (NASA)...

Links?

Quote
Some computer models show that metric can be manipulated.  However, tremendous energy is required.

Yep, one patent office worker actually discovered it like 85 years ago... just make massive object of precalculated shape and metric around/inside it will change accordingly...

Quote
Profitability:
a) Every dollar spent would have a return similar to the Apollo program.
b)The materials, engineering services, support infrastructure, etc would drive the economy.

We don't have enough theoretical knowledge. Some of things you cited are interesting and are a stepping stones to better knowledge of physics, but they are nowhere close to actual "star drive" technology. Manhattan project people, on the contrary, already had quite good theoretical grasp on what they are trying to do, and it still costed astronomical money to actually make it work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/29/2008 01:53 AM
Let's also keep in mind that the Manhattan Project was suboptimal in terms of value for money spent. If US and its allies had had considerable time, they could have found more efficient ways to fund atomic bomb development. A slower pace means cheaper effort overall, I think.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/16/2008 06:02 AM
This is a really interesting thread.  It's disappointing that it was disturbed by so many off topic comments and red herrings.  If I may, I'd like to share a perspective that I hope might be useful.  I'll understand if all our friends at JSC are busy elsewhere, putting their lives back in order after the storm.  Best wishes. . .

For space travel to come into anything like a "Golden Age" as did Earth, sea and air travel; it has to be 4 things: safe, quick, convenient and economical.  These should be a bare minimum requirement.  Also there's a concomitant observation here, that "golden age" space travel does not require FTL travel.  I for one would be happy with a "1 gee solution" where we could get from place to place around our planetary system while constantly accelerating at 1 gee.  Accelerate half way to the Moon at 1 gee (Earth gee), turn around and accelerate negatively the second half of the way--you can be on the Moon in less time than it takes to fly from NY to LA, you can be to Mars at its closest approach in 2 days, or at its greatest distance in 5 days, or to the asteroids in 6, or to Jupiter in 7, or to Saturn, it's pretty moon Titan and a view of the rings in 9 days.  That is mastery of this planetary system so long as it is relatively safe, quick, convenient and economical.

There's only one option mentioned in this thread that holds out this possibility and it is the gravinertial engineering happening with the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) explained by Space-Drive and as L-M has been well aware of for years.

There were only a few objections to this found in this thread.  If I may paraphrase:

1) Woodward must be measuring ion wind.

Rubbish.  His thruster creates the same thrust in air as it does in hard vacuum and everywhere between.  It's very well insulated and doesn't create ion wind.  He has also taken adequate precautions to show that he is not getting electrostatic or magnetic coupling, that no thermal effects are unaccounted for, etc.  Anyone can have access to his work.  None of it is done in a corner.  He invites all comers to be involved in his process about which he generally updates a very large list of guys like the people posting in this thread; so they can contribute however they like and see he does only good science.  Anyone who wants to take the time to read the relevant literature, get up to speed on the research and be involved is invited to do so.

2) The MLT doesn't produce enough thrust. 

Okay.  "Enough thrust" is pretty subjective.  Woodward is certainly producing thrusts more than an order magnitude above the noise floor of his test apparatus and he is working to develop a "demonstrator" that should end a lot of these sorts of objections.  However, I personally don't see how people unfamiliar with his work can say that his test items don't produce enough thrust.  Isn't that like saying you don't like bree cheese without ever having tasted it?

3)  This is a violation of GR. 

It is not.  It is also not a violation of any of the conservation laws.  Unlike the Shawyer devise mentioned early in this thread, it is based upon likely physics; whereas Shawyer really is asking everyone to forget about conservation of momentum.  Woodward has been published in peer reviewed journals for more than a decade and there are no objections outstanding.  People who object to his physics are generally folks who not only have not studied GR, they have not studied Mach's Principle and they are not familiar with any of the theory published over the years--basically, your envious QM guys who wish they had the answers Woodward seems to.

4)  It won't give us FTL travel. 

Well, this is true.  The MLT cannot ever produce FTL.  However, it is based upon a relatively unexplored (though 100 year old) area of physics, mastery of which could easily produce things like warp drive and wormhole travel.  That's a bit off for now.  First it would be nice to have impulse engines before we work on warp drive so, it's not much of an objection that Woodward's current work is not on FTL travel.  However, the gravinertial theory and engineering being developed now by Woodward et. al. is just exactly the stuff we need to understand how to make warp drives and traversable wormholes in the future.  And there simply is not another player worth watching.

5)  It's going to be so inefficient that it will be impractical.

No actually.  It could easily prove to be so efficient that it can provide its own energy source.  Now please, everyone wait for me to explain.

Space-Drive mentioned that in order to rectify periodic mass fluctuation into a unified and therefore useful force, the MLT essentially pushes heavy and pulls light.  That's the name of the game.  When the mass temporarily fluctuates up, you push on it.  When it fluctuates down, you pull on it.  There is never a violation in conservation involved because the mass-energy/momentum is being transferred back and forth between the active mass in the thruster and the rest of the universe.  The mass of the universe never changes nor does its momentum.  Woodward is just using a "sneaky trick" by pushing and pulling on the temporarily fluctuated mass in his ceramic.  When he does this, he is actually stealing momentum from the causally connected universe and putting it to better use.  In this case, the universe is the system to consider as a closed system so far as doing conservation balancing is concerned and the MLT is the great beneficiary of the system--not so different from the instance of walking.  When you walk West, our planet turns slightly slower West, but no one notices.

What Star-Drive did not mention is that Woodward is only creating fluctuations of less than 100%.  Others have driven their test items further and teams are working now to do this in the future.  What does it mean to drive an MLT past a 100% mass fluctuation or dm>m condition?  Well, we think it means that temporarily, the reactive mass in such a thruster would be negative mass with negative inertia.  If this is true (seems it is) and obtainable (there are already test items that have appeared to do this though that datum is inconclusive for lack of test controls--these tests were not run by Woodward in his vacuum chamber on his ARC Lite balance) then MLT's not only can be constructed to be fantastically efficient, they can even be used to harvest gravinertial energy used to run other MLT's and push spacecraft.  That means rangeless spacecraft (so far as the propulsion systems are concerned) and also holds out promise in the future to develop cheap energy, warp drives and traversable wormholes.

And these possibilities make all the time and attention you might invest in understanding Woodward's work, worth the effort.  IMHO
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 09/16/2008 09:08 AM
Several comments. First, conservation of energy is going to keep your system's overall mass-energy from changing. The idea as I understand it, is that you charge up a capacitor, increasing its mass slightly, push, then discharge the cap, reducing its mass slightly, and pull. The problem is that the energy of the capacitor has to go somewhere. Since you want to periodically charge the capacitor, you either need enough power on hand to charge it at the desired frequency, or you store the energy elsewhere in your vehicle. In the former case, you probably would generate more thrust by shining a laser or even selectively radiating heat to one side.

In the latter case, I don't see evidence that the system is open and hence capable of generating a net thrust. For example, I see a net force generated when you move energy from one capacitor to another storage device (be it a capacitor, inductor, or whatever). My take is that the forces induced by moving this energy around will counter the net force of this device. Having said this, we probably can as in a number of other proposed propellantless propulsion technologies generate a net torque and rotate an object with this setup.

Second, this device is extremely inefficient and we have no way, currently, of charging a capacitor to the degree that makes interesting thrust (according to the model). Maybe a large scale (on the order of kilometers or larger) would do since the thrust is apparently proportional to the square of the voltage difference across the capacitor and how much voltage you can charge before the capacitor arcs is proportional to the size of the capacitor.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/16/2008 06:03 PM
Hi Karl.  These are thoughtful remarks here.  Short responses:

". . .conservation will keep the system's mass-energy from changing"

Yes.  but the MLT's "system" includes all of the universe so this is not unexpected.  The thruster participates in a momentum exchange with the entire, causally connected universe.

"The idea as I understand it, is that you charge up a capacitor, increasing its mass slightly, push, then discharge the cap, reducing its mass slightly, and pull. The problem is that the energy of the capacitor has to go somewhere."

This is close, however; the MLT actually has two push phases and two pull phases for each complete cycle.  This is why Star-Drive mentioned we look for the second harmonic signature of the ac applied.  As to the energy going somewhere, in the ac signal to the caps and coils, well, that's a matter of impedance matching.  When done properly, the system can be remarkably efficient.  I think you have in mind instead, something like a dc system and that would be inefficient but happily, we're using ac sign waves and once matched the source and load form a rather elegant couple.

I'm not sure why you are saying this system is inefficient.  You obviously have not read any of the relevant literature.  Thrust efficiency scales to the quartic, not quadratic; power of applied voltage.  This is one of the things that makes an authentic Mach Effect signal identifiable, it scales to the 4th power of input voltage.  And I can tell you, it is not inefficient.  MLT thrust also scales with the cube of frequency and Dr. Woodward is only dabbling in the kHz range for now because he doesn't want to explore the whole new set of variables introduced once one enters "wormhole territory" or goes to dm>m.

Once you are producing negative mass for any length period of time, and lets remember, negative mass has negative inertia--it will appear to violate normal physics and self accelerate--the scaling effects are harder to predict.  So Woodward is working at low ultrasonic frequencies to avoid dm>m.  However, guys like Paul March are designing to run in the MHz range with mass fluctuations well over 3 million %.  This should actually draw more momentum and energy from the gravinertial field than it takes to run the devise, and make it appear to be an "overunity" devise.  Obviously, it is not truly "overunity" because it's system includes the entire universe and the system's net energy does not increase.  However, the MLT is harvesting both energy and momentum and from its beneficiaries' point of view (ours) it appears like an overunity thruster.  It should be able to produce net energy simply by attaching it to a generator, for example.

So no, none of this is anything like inefficient and I encourage you to look at the actual literature.  It's worth your time.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 09/17/2008 09:07 AM
Quote
So no, none of this is anything like inefficient and I encourage you to look at the actual literature.  It's worth your time.

do you have a link or can you suggest some papers?  I have found only this page until now:

http://www.woodwardeffect.org/

It contains all presentations from Woodwards homepage too (AFAIK)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/17/2008 07:48 PM
I think it's always best to poke around and see for yourself as it's hard for me to suggest anything without knowing what your skill set is, your specific interests etc.  However, I will admit that I like this:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/staif2000.pdf

from here:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html

as well as the link at the top of page 3 in this thread.  Anyone who wants to pursue an interest a bit further can let me know and I'll have you put on the open email distribution where you can make connections for other things like papers that are not posted on the web.  For instance, much of the writing and presenting on MLT tech the last few years has been at the Space Technologies and Applications International Forum (STAIF) and those papers cannot, because of IP issues; simply be posted on the web.  They can however be shared privately and they are certainly fascinating.  Also I should mention that the cutting edge news will certainly be presented at the Space Propulsion and Energy Sciences International Forum this coming February:

http://www.ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 09/22/2008 02:36 PM
Hi GI-Thruster;

thank you for the inks. The link to the SPESIF conference was new for me. Will this conference replace STAIF? The content seems to be the same, especially section F.   

I find the paper from paul marchs STAIF 2007 presentation quite fascinating. Most of the math is above my head (I'm only a normal air-and space technology engineer working in development and production as a materials & process engineer) but field propulsion technologies (Heim Drive, Woodward) are a scientific field which caught my attention years ago because normal rocket propulsion (even orion style nuclear pulse propulsion) will open "only" the solar system for exploration and chemical rocket propulsion will allow us only to reach mars, nothing more. So for me field propulsion seem the only way forward.

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/STAIF-2007%20MLT%20Powered%20Spacecraft-Final-3.1_W-O%20Appendix.ppt

One thing I find part fascinating and part strange because of the coincidence is that the company EESTOR develops at the moment large bariumtitanate capacitors to store large amounts of electricity. The same material and structure(?) seems to be beneficial for a high performance MLT-Thruster too.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 04:12 AM
Yes, SPESIF is indeed replacing STAIF now that that historic conference that ran, was it 25 or 35 years? is now at an end.  SPECIF is in fact being organized by some of the same folks who ran STAIF section F, like NASA' s Tony Robertson and I believe Paul Murad is still involved as well.  I don't know because I haven't asked but I suspect people like Dr. James Woodward from CS Fullerton and Dr. Eric Davis from EarthTech will continue to chair the conferences.

The EESTOR caps are indeed very interesting technology.  If it delivers as claimed, they will have about the same energy density as very good LiPo batteries but have such a large power density that they can be charged in just a few minutes and be at least an order of magnitude cheaper than batteries.  Just the sort of stuff we need for electric cars.  However, I doubt they would be the best choice for an MLT.  EESTOR has a very unusual construction technique in mind that is unlike normal sintering of BaTiO3 caps and certainly not a single crystal so it may not work in an MLT.  Guess we'll have to wait and see!  Paul March is currently working on a high Q Teflon cap design and it may be possible to use several other sorts of materials like electrostrictors (PMN-PT), magnetostrictors (Terfenol-D) and even some dielectric elastomers which would certainly break the price barrier for materials as these couldn't be cheaper.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/26/2008 07:15 AM
The MLT thrusters are certainly interesting, and although I know nothing about high-K materials and general relativity, I will be cheering from the sidelines.

To khallow, yes the engine may be inefficient, but at the moment it's (a) a long way from reaching maturation and (b) doesn't dump any propellant. I'm willing to bet that the total impulse and produced by these things is in a nuclear-electric scheme is more than what you would get from a direct thermionic or fission fragment setup for the same quantity of fuel.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 09/26/2008 09:43 AM
Yes, SPESIF is indeed replacing STAIF now that that historic conference that ran
This is a new agency?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 03:58 PM
I wouldn't call STAIF or SPESIF an "agency."  They're just professional conferences.  STAIF came out of the nuke industry and was run in Albuquerque, NM for more than 25 years.  I was at the last conference and ought to remember just how many years because there was a "so long--see ya!" ceremony but I just don't remember.

STAIF section F has been a significant support to futures concepts, especially propulsion for several years.  It was the black sheep member of STAIF that many tended to look down on.  However, it was certainly the most exciting section in the conference.  Well, section F will live on at the new SPESIF conference held in Huntsville AL starting this coming February.  Keep an eye out and if you can afford the time, try to attend!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 09/26/2008 04:14 PM
Looking at this more carefully, I'd have to disagree on the MLT.  First, the explanation (as I understand it) for the thrust appears wrong. As I understand it, the claim is that the engine is pushing against existing gravitational fields from distant objects (Mach's principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle) effectively). But it works just the same in the absence of other matter, that is, even in situations where Mach's principle wouldn't apply. That indicates to me that the momentum (of the thrust claimed to be produced) would be transfered by a combination of gravitation waves and electromagnetic waves (photons). A dipole like a capacitor should generate some EM waves, I think, but I'm not clear on what directions they'd be propagating in. I suspect that they would be orthogonal to the direction of thrust though. So we're probably speaking of a way to produce gravity waves biased towards some direction opposite the desired thrust direction.

Second, the model doesnt' include thrust from current flows. If I discharge one capacitor and charge a second, my take is that current flow (net flow will be from first capacitor to second capacitor) will generate some amount of thrust. And for a model like this one, some of that thrust will be counter to the desired thrust direction. My concern is that we have a net zero (linear) thrust engine as a result.

A further indication that this might be the case is the experiment setup described in one of the linked papers above. I'll repost for clarification:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/staif2000.pdf

After the paper proper, there is the set of figures. Figure 6 shows the experiment. The equipment is suspended by a thin wire which is the axis that the experiment rotates around and two er thrusters are mounted so that they push in the same rotation direction with the wire as an axis, but opposite directions for linear (translational) force. Such an experiment generates torsion (rotation force) not linear force. Also, it appears that power is fed in from above the system. So we may be missing a key component of the overall forces on the system.

An improvement on the engine would have both thrusters on one side, pointing in the same direction, while an appropriate nonconductive counterweight rests on the opposite arm to balance the engine. Systemwide, this still just measures torque of the entire apparatus, but the thrusters would have to be generating net thrust in order for net torque to be observed.

In my humble opinion, the experiment needs to have everything including the power supply on this arm. If there is net thrust under those circumstances, then we have a winner. Glancing at the experiment, I don't see fault with the rest of the experiment, just placement of the capacitors and the power supply (or at least a good justification for why one can remove the power supply).

Finally, there has been some talk about being able to produce energy from the MLT in an extreme operating regime without an explanation for where that energy comes from (remember it works even in the absence of a gravitational field). I think this just indicates that the model doesn't work in that regime.

Here's the reason why. Whenever you have a possible process that produces energy from a system, you need to ask yourself if the process appears in nature. If it does, then you're set. If it doesn't, then you need to explain why the process doesn't appear. As far as I know, we don't observe energy releases of this form. My take is that the mechanism for creating energy here is simple enough that we probably should be seeing anomalous energy production in extremely energetic events and locations like supernova, neutron stars, black holes, etc. While that doesn't indicate that the overall model is flawed in the regime we're really interested in, it is a warning sign.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 05:25 PM
Karl, I appreciate your interest here but I want to recommend again that you look at the literature. 

Sonny White at NASA's Johnson Space Center has a ZPF based theory about why these test items produce thrust that is an unrelated explanation for the thrust--unrelated to Mach's Principle.  However, that maverick explanation aside, no.  MLT thrust cannot be explained apart from holding Mach's Principle.  In fact, all the MLT's UFG's and rotators being built are considered to be providing empirical evidence for Machian physics.  So whatever understanding you have that these items ought to work whether Mach is right or wrong are certainly misunderstandings.

You can also forget about gravitational waves, etc.  Mach's principle states that inertia is the direct result of all the mass in the universe's gravitational effects on its various parts.  It is in fact chiefly the farthest mass that is the source of the GI field or Far Off Active Matter (FOAM).  If this theory behind inertia's origin is wrong, the thrusters will not work (except unless Sonny White's explanation obtains, which is its own issue.)

I'm not sure how to address your other points and I don't want to treat them flippantly.  On your complaints about how the wire pendulum ought to have been designed, I'm not sure I see your point.  If both thrusters were to have been placed on one side of the wire, and an inactive mass on the other to balance it, this would simply have made any observation harder to make for surely, we would have twice the mass and the same thrust.  Since F=MA, this would just make for a less sensitive design.

However, let me remind that this design was built without funding on Tom Mahood's checkbook for his Master's Thesis.  It was designed to be simple, cheap and demonstrate force.  It succeeded brilliantly a decade ago and that work is now long over.  After that followed work using the U-80 load cell and following that, the current high fidelity equipment was put in place, the ARC Lite thrust balance.  The ARC Lite is truly a world class piece of test equipment.  If you want to object to equipment and protocols, I would suggest you look at the current designs as surely, past work that is not being repeated is not worth objecting to at all.  Though, I think it's noteworthy that the cheap wire pendulum did demonstrate thrust and there still exists to this day, the videos that show this.

Final observation for you to consider, Karl.  I don't know your background but you're obviously very bright and latching onto serious issues even when you haven't yet been fully informed.  Let me just say that the likelyhood you will find a serious objection that obtains with a minor investment of time and energy is very unlikely.

Dr. Woodward's Ph.D. is in the history of gravity physics.  He's an educator and experimentalist who taught physics for decades at California State University at Fullerton and still runs a lab there.  His team is composed of many of the most brilliant minds in engineering and physics available today, Oxford Ph.D.'s and NASA engineers all looking over Woodward's shoulder to see he only does good science.  You're invited to get up to speed and join the team if you like.  However, I would suggest to you that before you make an objection, you invest the time to understand the work.  I assure you this will be worth all the effort.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kraisee on 09/26/2008 06:05 PM
From what I've read so far I'm still skeptical about any claims of thrust without propellant, but I am quite interested in knowing for sure before writing anything off.

What interests me is what it will take to actually prove this one way or the other?

How big an experiment (physical size and cost) is going to be needed to prove or dispel this once and for all?

Ross.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 06:25 PM
Ross, I'm a philosopher by training so I think I can speak to the issue of what constitutes  proof.  In a nutshell, all "proof" is an illusion.

All we can hope for is evidence that is sufficiently compelling that those interested in seeing the work get funded will indeed be compelled.  And to be frank about it, there have already been plenty of people step forward and want to provide funding.  Dr. Woodward always turns them down.

What we need is a "demonstrator" that produces enough thrust that people like Dr. Woodward and agencies like DARPA are so convinced that they take action.  A $50 million grant from DARPA would put hundreds or thousands of engineers and physicists to work and we'd be on the road to a viable technology.  Until there's a demonstrator, we're not going to see this sort of funding.

You want my guess how long until we see such a demonstration?  Three months.  Six tops.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 09/26/2008 08:59 PM
FWIW

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 09:45 PM
My trouble with this story is that it's a story at all.  This is clearly a defense technology.  If the Chinese were pursuing it with anything remotely resembling serious hope, I doubt we'd be hearing about it.  Lets remember, they don't have our separation between civil and military organization when it comes to aerospace spending and they don't pay for intellectual properties.  They just take them, so there's no reason for them to cooperate with Shawyer.  Sonny White and Paul March didn't need Shawyer's cooperation to do a Shawyer replication and it failed.  I think this is a red herring.
 
I'm sticking with my guns.  I think China probably has an MLT program that is at least 2 years in advance of ours.  The Chinese commitment to leadership in space would make that a no-brainer, since the MLT papers published a few years ago must have gotten their attention.  And they have money to burn.  Their engineers get paid less than our kids working the counter at Burger King.  With resources so cheap, I'd bet they have people working on Jack Sarfatti's Weightless Warp Drive notions and one has to suppose they hope Baker's gravity wave stuff can be adapted for propulsion.  They're already funding the communications end of things.
 
Before the fall of Rome, the Romans taught their barbarian cousins how to store food in silos so they wouldn't go hungry each winter and starve after each poor harvest.  That was the beginning of the end.  The empire fell from without.  But it also fell from within through lack of commitment to the future--lot like what we have here, now in the US.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 09:57 PM
Who was that masked man?!

Well, that was Paul March.

Paul, is there anywhere people here can look at your WarpStar paper or the Horizon's version?

We need to get as many homegrown engineers and physicists up to speed on your work as possible.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 10:25 PM
>This glow discharge kept us from reaching the internal E&M field conditions in the resonant cavity needed to match those reported by Shawyer by over two orders of magnitude, so we could not make any comment on the validity of Shawyer’s work from our failed experiment, and neither should you.

I agree.  My point was that you and Sonny were certainly able to follow Shawyer's work without his help and so can the Chinese.  If the Chinese were seriously involved in this work, we would not be reading about it on Wired.  It would be a Chinese "Black Project" we never hear about, just as I'm propsing is what is happening with the MLT.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 09/27/2008 07:13 PM
GI-Thruster and Star-Drive, I believe my proposed experiment would be somewhat harder to do, but it would determine whether the device can generate linear thrust as opposed to torque.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/08/2008 05:08 AM
I have some naive questions for you:

Looking at the Machian mass fluctuation equation,

dm0 = 1 / 4piG [1/p0c^2 dP/dt - (1/p0c^2)^2 P^2/V]

So you need to increase delivered power, reduce pulse time and decrease capacitor volume. What about p0? Is that rho, as in density?

Would low atomic weight ions be a better choice for the capacitor, instead of titanium ions like in the barium titanate? Titanium is also weakly paramagnetic... is this an issue with using magnetic fields to oscillate the capacitor?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/08/2008 02:25 PM
Paul, this sounds great! Do you issue preprints (say on Arxiv.org)?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/14/2008 06:44 AM
Lampyridae:

p0 is the rest mass density of the dielectric in question.  The Mach-Effect mass fluctuations magnitude in an MLT are proportional to the applied voltage cubed, the operating frequency cubed, the dielectric constant squared, and inversely proportional with the MLT's cap dielectric's density.  The MLT's unidirectional force output is proportional to the magnitude of the mass fluctuations, the applied B-field, times the sine of the Cap's E-field vector relative to the applied B-field vector when the excitation signal is a sine wave.  In other words when the applied E-field and B-field are parallel to each other, you get zero thrust.  When they are 90 degrees out of phase you get maximum thrust.  And when you flip the B-field vector 180 degrees so it's -90 degrees relative to the E-field you get maximum thrust in the opposite direction.  Nothing like being able to back up a spaceship!

OK, thanks for that clarification. My maths is kinda rusty so it took a while! Look forward to hearing updates from you guys. Especially the 1kN test article (did I read that right?).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/23/2008 06:07 AM
This QVF / MHD plasma drive concept escapes me at the moment - I haven't seen any paperwork on it. I can see how e/p flux could be used as propellant, but how do phonons propagate this energy? What does Dark Energy have to do with everything?

Spent nearly an hour trying to find anything by or on Dr. Harold White and all I got was that paper on metric engineering.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 10/23/2008 01:20 PM
This QVF / MHD plasma drive concept escapes me at the moment - I haven't seen any paperwork on it. I can see how e/p flux could be used as propellant, but how do phonons propagate this energy? What does Dark Energy have to do with everything?

QVF ~ ZPE. And ZPE somehow interacts with Dark matter itself. The MHD drives the whole conversion process and turns it into propellantless thrust. In the end you've got an engine that is far superior to the impulse drive of Enterprise, because it uses a vast outer energy supply. Now you get the picture?  With a working QVF / MHD plasma drive we could explore and colonize Sol very fast.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/23/2008 02:02 PM
I can't find any online reference to a Dr. Harold (Sonny) White. Does anyone have a reference to him or a paper that I can look up?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/24/2008 04:55 AM
This QVF / MHD plasma drive concept escapes me at the moment - I haven't seen any paperwork on it. I can see how e/p flux could be used as propellant, but how do phonons propagate this energy? What does Dark Energy have to do with everything?

QVF ~ ZPE. And ZPE somehow interacts with Dark matter itself. The MHD drives the whole conversion process and turns it into propellantless thrust. In the end you've got an engine that is far superior to the impulse drive of Enterprise, because it uses a vast outer energy supply. Now you get the picture?  With a working QVF / MHD plasma drive we could explore and colonize Sol very fast.

How does QVF interact with Dark Matter, Dark Energy or whatever? It sounds like there are electrons and positrons spinning around in a cycloid pattern inside an MHD nozzle. A 100MHz RF field pumps them, creating phonons in the plasma cycloid. These phonons are then somehow coupled to a thrust structure (MHD nozzle?). Somehow 1.4KW of input power are translated into 1000N of thrust. Which translates to a virtual Isp of about 28s. Which means, if I got my maths right, that there is a virtual mass flow rate of about 3kg/s. How is the virtual mass being created?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/24/2008 06:23 AM
Quote
With a working QVF/MHD drive you not only have an impulse drive that is better than the Star Trek Enterprise's propulsion system by the same name, you also have the heart of the warp drive that will open up the galaxy for all of us as well.  The ZPE AKA Dark Energy field energy balance required to perform this spacetime bending trick is nicely tucked away in White's published derivations and his unpublished presentations that Sonny has passed around to the NASA/JSC propulsion community willing to listen.  Alas, when Dr. Griffin at NASA Headquarters said "no new propulsion research will be tolerated at NASA while the Ares rockets are under development" back in 2005, he meant every word of it.  So we trudge on, on our own nickel, until we can float in the first MLT or QVF/MHD prototypes into Dr. Griffin's office. 

If you do, please film it so we can see the reaction on his face!

Quote
The reason we have to evoke phonons in the Dirac e/p sea of transient QM e/p pairs is their very short (Plank time scales) life times that they are present in our universe, since they are semi-virtual particles by their definition in QM.  However, just like the lack of electrons in a p-type semiconductor otherwise known as P-type charge "holes", they can transmit energy through the p-type semiconductor.   These transient e/p pairs can also set up momentum waves in the Dirac e/p sea that can and do transmit momentum from the local disturbance to the distance matter in the universe that set up this transient e/p sea to begin with in zero time since they are all thought to be QM entangled.

Ahhh, now I see why you have phonons. Wow, that is really out of the box thinking to invoke it in QVF. I wonder if this... semiconductor-like property could be used in other ways? Vacuum circuitry? Star-Trek "plasma conduits?" (LOL!) FTL communication? The mind boggles.

So... in rough layman terms... the drive expels a virtual QVF plasma causally connected to a sphere 13 billion lightyears in radius? But that's not how I understand entanglement to work. Err, no, wait... it's just a vacuum fluctuation and you can't tell it's been altered until you have some signal to compare it to.

Sheesh, I need to do some more homework. But thanks for the explanation, Star-Drive. Are any of you guys getting donations for these projects? Seems downright expensive to be doing it on your own.

*EDIT* You mention space-time bending. Could this produce an artificial gravity well? So we could enjoy Star Trek accelerations without becoming meat jam on the aft bulkhead?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 10/24/2008 11:17 AM
How does QVF interact with Dark Matter, Dark Energy or whatever?
ZPE/QVF are the basics of Dark Energy and it's behaviour. Because we use all this terms (ZPE/QVF, Dark Matter, Dark Energy) to describe the same thing - another fundamental force that is yet to be discovered. Haven't you asked yourself how many fundamental forces do exist?
We know about four of them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
but they are not enough to explain why astronomers have found galaxies that are moving away from each other and away from us rather than moving close and collide. So, there is another force that acts oposite of gravity and causes this expansion. During Big Bang the universe has expanded faster than c, the spacetime itself has expanded faster than the speed of light.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/24/2008 03:13 PM
The effect described by "dark energy" is not a distinct force. It is a property of the shape of the universe (which in turn is dictated by physical law and mass-energy flow through that space). We can incorporate it into the force of gravity by a nonzero cosmological constant. What is speculated to be going on is that the interaction between gravity and the other three forces results in this very small expansion of the universe.

The "inflation phase" of the Big Bang can be approximated as I understand it by a larger cosmological constant. My guess is that that part was due to heavy repulsion of the dense early universe due to the strong force. But the expansion was not locally faster than the speed of light. Distant parts of the universe (under this model) would slide off our horizon, but that doesn't mean that they are moving away from us faster than light. It means that the space in between is expanding sufficiently fast that light from that point can no longer reach us here. The length of the path grows faster in time than the speed of light.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 10/24/2008 05:45 PM
"The reason we have to evoke phonons in the Dirac e/p sea of transient QM e/p pairs is their very short (Plank time scales) life times that they are present in our universe, since they are semi-virtual particles by their definition in QM.  However, just like the lack of electrons in a p-type semiconductor otherwise known as P-type charge "holes", they can transmit energy through the p-type semiconductor.   These transient e/p pairs can also set up momentum waves in the Dirac e/p sea that can and do transmit momentum from the local disturbance to the distance matter in the universe that set up this transient e/p sea to begin with in zero time since they are all thought to be QM entangled."

StarDrive, just to be clear with everyone, this is really the question your work should answer.  We don't yet know these virtual particles can transfer momentum.  There are some who presume they can and others that they cannot.  Certainly the best way to answer the question is design, build and run a thruster and see if indeed it creates thrust!

Godspeed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 10/25/2008 04:47 AM
Awesome thread. Leading Edge Theoretical Physics Hypothesizing without any kookery. NASA should be funding these attempts, they may not pan out, but they should be trying at least. Hopefully the next President will appoint an Administrator who is less of a Philistine.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/30/2008 05:05 AM
Well, with the rumblings in the beltway, I think that may be the case. Fingers crossed. I'm sure the DoD is quietly conducting its own experiments on this, but you can rest assured they won't be for public consumption. :P

Star-Drive, is there a diagram available illustrating how the QVF thruster works, or a design?

At the moment, I'm just guessing at how this all fits together. I'm just digesting stuff on vacuum energy and pair production (oh how shallow my physics knowledge is...). But the e/p pairs do have an influence thanks to vacuum polarisation. What purpose does the 100 MHz RF generator therefore have? How does it set up phonons in the e/p plasma? I gather it would pull them apart and make them dipoles for a little bit longer before they annihilate.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/30/2008 01:46 PM

You have to view the universe as a 13.7 x 2 = 27.4 billion light year diameter spherical gravinertial resonant cavity that expanded from the big bang nexus where all spacetime, energy and the nuclear particles to come were all in the same quantum state at the starting gate, think super cooled helium-II, and therefore entangled QM wise.  Can we still claim this entangled state still exists for the ZPE Dirac-Sea of semi-virtual e/p pairs?  This question can only be determined by experimental data that tells us WHY inertial effects are instantaneous in nature.

As I (or for that matter, any classical observer) see it, the answer is  "no". However it happened, the above entangled system of the universe has collapsed, if only due to our classical observations. Further, if general relativity is accurate, inertial effects are not instantaneous. And if the universe is open (which is the current opinion of cosmology), then there is no resonance. Keep in mind further, that we only see part of the universe, just what is in the past of our light cone. The universe could well be infinite in spatial extent as well as time.

I find the explanations given above for quantum vacuum fluctuation (QVF) based propulsion to be rather dubious. Here's my take. The Woodward drive (the one with the vibrating charging/discharging capacitors seems to have some potential (assuming my concern is unfounded and it can generate thrust not just torque). There is a measurable effect there and can be explained reasonably as radiating either EM or gravity waves, both which can transfer momentum. The Casimir effect is the only known way to extract energy from vacuum (by letting a series of sheets "stick" to each other). I don't know of any way currently to use the Casimir effect to directly generate thrust, but there's probably a weak effect somewhere.

But finding some sort of oscillation of the universe (which we haven't seen yet!) and exploiting that seems a higher level problem. One which may not be solvable merely because no such oscillation exists.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 11/01/2008 06:25 PM
Karl,

>The Woodward drive (the one with the vibrating charging/discharging capacitors seems to have some potential (assuming my concern is unfounded and it can generate thrust not just torque). There is a measurable effect there and can be explained reasonably as radiating either EM or gravity waves, both which can transfer momentum.

All of Woodward's experiments over the years have demonstrated linear force.  The fact that a torque pendulum turns linear force into torque doesn't negate the observation that the thrusters generate thrust.  I can see your point of concern that especially Tom Mahood's early wire pendulum experiments a decade ago are demonstrating torque but remember, it is the measurement apparatus, not the thruster; that is converting force into torque through use of a moment arm.  The arm is on the measurement apparatus, not the thruster.

Jim did however avoid use of a moment arm in test apparatus for some years when he was doing his tests with the U-80 load cell.  The troubles with the load cell were however, that it is not spec 'd for very short duration thrust impulses and it is an electromechanical device that one needs to demonstrate conclusively is not picking up any electrostatic or magnetic coupling.  Going to the ARC Lite balance really is a step up in measurement.  Additionally, Jim has been very careful to show he is not getting ion wind and thermal by running in E-6T vacuum.  He's also made judicious use of things like Mu metal to show there is no b field coupling etc. 

All in all, though the work goes slowly; it's been very thorough.  If there's a single questionable issue with the apparatus and protocols, it is that he is measuring exceedingly small forces and as StarDrive has said, there are many who find this an issue all alone.  But the ability to derive useful data from these systems is entirely dependent upon apparatus and protocol so I for one don't have issues with Jim's work.  So long as he stays above the noise floor by at least and order of magnitude, I can't see anything wrong with his work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/02/2008 10:03 PM
khallow: "As I (or for that matter, any classical observer) see it, the answer is  "no". However it happened, the above entangled system of the universe has collapsed, if only due to our classical observations. Further, if general relativity is accurate, inertial effects are not instantaneous. And if the universe is open (which is the current opinion of cosmology), then there is no resonance. Keep in mind further, that we only see part of the universe, just what is in the past of our light cone. The universe could well be infinite in spatial extent as well as time."

Well, the actual QVF would still be entangled because the particle/antiparticle production happens all in the Heisenberg uncertainty scale. Thus, having not been "observed" the entanglement might still be valid.

I believe the Casimir effect was used to generate thrust by NASA's APL, although it was miniscule (a vibrating plate...) I can see how this thruster concept would work in either a classical plasma exhaust situation, using QVF as reaction mass, or by using e/p pairs as the reaction mass for a Mach-Lorentz thruster. However in either case the thrust would be negligible. I think this thruster somehow relies on entanglement and Dark Matter to achieve the thrust we're looking at - or rather, generating a negative QVF gradient. This QVF seems less a thruster then the QVF gravitational equivalent of a balloon. Having not seen the paper and not having the physics background to judge it, one really has to adopt a "wait and see" attitude for this one. There are plenty of theories out there predicting gravity drives... Heim theory for one, which is still debatable.

Anyway, if the test article floats into the conference hall then we can discuss theory all we want while NASA rips out the orbiter SSMEs and stuffs these babies inside.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 11/03/2008 05:40 AM
While I'm still concerned about whether the Mach-Lorentz thruster (MLT as usual) produces linear thrust or not, I do find myself warming up to it. If it works as advertised, not only do we have a potential propellantless thruster and emitter of gravity waves, but with slight modification (continue to charge/discharge the capacitor at the desired frequency, but let the capacitor float free), it should be able to serve as a detector of gravity waves in the appropriate frequencies. That means that among other things, you should be able to build sensors and communication devices (eg, phased arrays) using this idea. A gravity wave based communication system ought to be able to work under some unusual circumstances, like communicating directly through Earth.

In any case, multiple uses for the technology means it's more likely that one of them is sufficient to spur development of the technology in the near future.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/04/2008 06:06 AM
Folks:

In regards to how the QVF drives actually may work, you might find it of interest to read thru the following paper by Dr. Paul Stevenson from Rice University, noting the unusual characteristics of a "Higgs vacuum".

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0409292v2

Hydrodynamics of the Vacuum
P. M. Stevenson
T. W. Bonner Laboratory, Department of Physics and Astronomy
Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA

Abstract:
Hydrodynamics is the appropriate “effective theory” for describing any fluid medium at sufficiently long length scales. This paper treats the vacuum as such a medium and derives the corresponding hydrodynamic equations.  Unlike a normal medium the vacuum has no linear sound-wave regime; disturbances always “propagate” nonlinearly.  For an “empty vacuum” the hydrodynamic equations are familiar ones (shallow water-wave equations) and they describe an experimentally observed phenomenon — the spreading of a clump of zero-temperature atoms into empty space.  The “Higgs vacuum” case is much stranger; pressure and energy density, and hence time and space, exchange roles.  The speed of sound is formally infinite, rather than zero as in the empty vacuum.  Higher-derivative corrections to the vacuum hydrodynamic equations are also considered. In the empty-vacuum case the corrections are of quantum origin and the post-hydrodynamic description corresponds to the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. I conjecture the form of the post-hydrodynamic corrections in the Higgs case.  In the 1+1-dimensional case the equations possess remarkable ‘soliton’ solutions and appear to constitute a new exactly integrable system.


That makes me think of the inside of a black hole, where time and space swap places. I doubt if I could gain access to that journal, and the maths wouldn't mean much to me because I couldn't nitpick it. However, I can see how this theory would make sense in the context of negative energy.

Do you have a diagram of the QVF thruster?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/04/2008 06:10 AM
While I'm still concerned about whether the Mach-Lorentz thruster (MLT as usual) produces linear thrust or not, I do find myself warming up to it. If it works as advertised, not only do we have a potential propellantless thruster and emitter of gravity waves, but with slight modification (continue to charge/discharge the capacitor at the desired frequency, but let the capacitor float free), it should be able to serve as a detector of gravity waves in the appropriate frequencies. That means that among other things, you should be able to build sensors and communication devices (eg, phased arrays) using this idea. A gravity wave based communication system ought to be able to work under some unusual circumstances, like communicating directly through Earth.

In any case, multiple uses for the technology means it's more likely that one of them is sufficient to spur development of the technology in the near future.


Maybe capacitors in spacecraft circuitry, interacting with fluctuations in the ambient gravity field as they pass over an uneven Earth, have been responsible for their uncorrected-for orbit perturbations?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/10/2008 05:44 AM
Star-Drive,

Thanks for straightening things out. It's a plain ole JxB thruster but with dielectric instead of the... "combustion chamber" (don't know what to call it in a non-chemical rocket). Injection cavity?

I wonder what else comes popping out of the QVF? I suppose in addition to the zoo of subatomic particles you might have gravitons, too. Wonder if someone's written a paper on it - more likely I'm talking rubbish.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: nacnud on 11/22/2008 04:50 AM
Surely that is just a conformation that E=mc**2 .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 11/22/2008 01:52 PM
Lampyridae:

You and Karl might find the following article from NewScientist of some interest entitled: "It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html?full=true&print=true

Since matter appears to be just self-contaiend vacuum-fluctuations smoke rings that make up the proton's quarks & gluons as well the electrons, then artifically affecting these elements by externally applied E&M fields as proposed in the MLT and QVF/MHD thruster devices becomes much less of a reach don't you think?   

An isolated proton is not a vacuum state, hence, it is not a vacuum fluctuation. It does provide evidence for quantum chromodynamics (QCD) (the theory with quarks and all forces but gravity in it) which does have vacuum fluctuations. And even if vacuum fluctuations exist (which I consider very likely), doesn't mean we can exploit it for a propulsion technology. The MLT (Mach Lorentz Thruster for those who haven't been keeping up) is pushing back and forth a capacitor whose inertia we can control via charging and discharging the capacitor. In other words, the capacitor's inertia fluctuates, but in a way we control.

The QVF/MWD (Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation/MagnetoHydroDynamics) thruster is attempting to do the same (as far as I can tell) for a patch of fluctuating vacuum for which we do not control the "fluctuation". Even attempting to observe the vacuum (in order to figure out whether to push or pull, let's say) will change to some degree the state of the vacuum. I just don't see the mechanism for generating a predictable, consistent thrust in a particular direction.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/27/2008 12:28 AM
Lampyridae:

You and Karl might find the following article from NewScientist of some interest entitled: "It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html?full=true&print=true

Since matter appears to be just self-contaiend vacuum-fluctuations smoke rings that make up the proton's quarks & gluons as well the electrons, then artifically affecting these elements by externally applied E&M fields as proposed in the MLT and QVF/MHD thruster devices becomes much less of a reach don't you think?   

An isolated proton is not a vacuum state, hence, it is not a vacuum fluctuation. It does provide evidence for quantum chromodynamics (QCD) (the theory with quarks and all forces but gravity in it) which does have vacuum fluctuations. And even if vacuum fluctuations exist (which I consider very likely), doesn't mean we can exploit it for a propulsion technology. The MLT (Mach Lorentz Thruster for those who haven't been keeping up) is pushing back and forth a capacitor whose inertia we can control via charging and discharging the capacitor. In other words, the capacitor's inertia fluctuates, but in a way we control.

The QVF/MWD (Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation/MagnetoHydroDynamics) thruster is attempting to do the same (as far as I can tell) for a patch of fluctuating vacuum for which we do not control the "fluctuation". Even attempting to observe the vacuum (in order to figure out whether to push or pull, let's say) will change to some degree the state of the vacuum. I just don't see the mechanism for generating a predictable, consistent thrust in a particular direction.


Yet we *are* observing the vacuum, at a macroscopic state, because mass is real and not virtual. Somehow, all the quantum vacuum fluctuations even out and we don't live in a bubbling mass of quantum soda.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/27/2008 01:33 AM
Surely that is just a conformation that E=mc**2 .

True, but it seems that matter is closer to energy than we would have thought. And that there seems to be a clearer link between energy and gravity, not just some unexplained space-time distortion in the presence of matter or energy. I'm keen to see where this research goes.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 11/27/2008 03:09 AM

Yet we *are* observing the vacuum, at a macroscopic state, because mass is real and not virtual. Somehow, all the quantum vacuum fluctuations even out and we don't live in a bubbling mass of quantum soda.

The point of the computation was to demonstrate that the "standard model" does a decent job of approximating the mass of a proton. As I see it, we can't go from the model to claiming there's an exploitable fluctuation in the vacuum state. It's something like claiming you have some algorithm for consistently making money from the stock market based solely on the observation that prices on the stock market fluctuate. It could be true, but I'd like to see what mechanism is going to make that work out.

Surely that is just a conformation that E=mc**2 .

True, but it seems that matter is closer to energy than we would have thought. And that there seems to be a clearer link between energy and gravity, not just some unexplained space-time distortion in the presence of matter or energy. I'm keen to see where this research goes.

General relativity has a very close relationship between mass and energy, and between those two and the curvature of spacetime. The Einstein field equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations) equate an expression of the curvature of space and the cosmological constant with the stress-energy tensor which describes the mass and energy flow of the system.

I think even when we come up with accurate theories that incorporate the four forces (and perhaps other phenomena manifesting at energies beyond what we currently can observe), we still have a general relativity approximation (since general relativity works pretty well on the cosmological scale). So whatever's in the greater theory will reduce (once aspects like electromagnetism are negligiable or perhaps somehow encapsulated) to curvature, cosmological constant, or the stress-energy tensor. That should in itself imply the deep relationships between mass and energy you note, Lampyridae.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MTKeshe on 11/28/2008 11:22 AM
If one uses matter, or anti-matter  for motion in propellantless field propulsion systems in atmospheric condition or space condition,  would  one be able to measure the  thrust created by the system or no , as one can do in rocket technology?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/03/2008 01:25 AM
I take it you mean an accelerometer. It depends on the nature of the propellantless propulsion device. The MLT is a kind of rocket thruster using Far-Off Active Mass as "propellant." Therefore acceleration would be felt as normal, and without issues like intense vibrations and so on. Gravity-based drives for example wouldn't produce noticeable acceleration in the craft as it would be "falling" wherever its artificial gravity well pointed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 12/13/2008 11:24 PM
Well, with the rumblings in the beltway, I think that may be the case. Fingers crossed. I'm sure the DoD is quietly conducting its own experiments on this, but you can rest assured they won't be for public consumption. :P

Star-Drive, is there a diagram available illustrating how the QVF thruster works, or a design?

At the moment, I'm just guessing at how this all fits together. I'm just digesting stuff on vacuum energy and pair production (oh how shallow my physics knowledge is...). But the e/p pairs do have an influence thanks to vacuum polarisation. What purpose does the 100 MHz RF generator therefore have? How does it set up phonons in the e/p plasma? I gather it would pull them apart and make them dipoles for a little bit longer before they annihilate.

What is the current state of experiments with the MLT? Been off this forum for a while, too busy with business.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 12/14/2008 08:50 AM
I take it you mean an accelerometer. It depends on the nature of the propellantless propulsion device. The MLT is a kind of rocket thruster using Far-Off Active Mass as "propellant." Therefore acceleration would be felt as normal, and without issues like intense vibrations and so on. Gravity-based drives for example wouldn't produce noticeable acceleration in the craft as it would be "falling" wherever its artificial gravity well pointed.

Still it'll push on anything attached to it like a lever arm or cable. So you should be able to measure the thrust even if apparent acceleration is different.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 02/27/2009 07:39 AM
Star-Drive, is there any way to access the preprint listed in this conference?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 02/27/2009 11:49 PM
I barely understand anything you're writing Star-Drive, but it sounds friggin sweet. On the order, or above that of Dr. Bussard and his fusion plant!

Lets hope these things aren't just sci-fi
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 02/28/2009 07:00 AM
If I may add to what Paul is saying when he pens:

"The big problem here is just that very few people in the world have gone down this particular General Relativity rabbit trail. . ."

I have to concur.  There are relatively few theoretical physicists who have caught on to what Jim Woodward did when he brought Einstein and Mach together--that was a piece of genius we'll be looking back on for centuries much as we do with Lorentz, Maxwell and so many others who brought us an understanding of electromagnetism and all the tech that comes from this.

But why I'm posting again after several months away. . .anyone wanting a fuller understanding of the historical basis for what we're doing in gravinertial engineering will find this work invaluable:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235806860&sr=8-1

I highly recommend all of chapter 3 and especially Barbour's  "General Relativity as a Perfectly Machian Theory".  Obviously, Jim Woodward is not the only physicist who understands the relevance of Mach's Principle but he's the guy that made this apprehensible and an obtainable technology.

We have evidence, folks.  This is real and happening.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/28/2009 05:04 PM
Dr. James F. Woodward has recently completed a series of rotary based experiments designed to test his Mach-Effect (M-E) Conjecture--that when a capacitor dielectric's mass is driven by a time varying electromagnetic (E&M) power flux, while simultaneously undergoing bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars; that this will give rise to Mach Effects, or the temporary fluctuation of relativistic mass. 


Does Woodward's work relate at all to the work of the late TT Brown?

Using relativity to change the reaction mass through the cycle is the key to making this work, this is something I've known for over a decade. One question I've always had was whether it was possible to have mass-changing relativistic effects at much lower speeds by using, for instance, a fluid dynamic model, in which the speed of light within the fluid is very slow, and thus generate the impulse from using a hydraulic model with a fluid as the working mass.

I designed and built a prototype to test this a long while back but did not have the lab facilities to test it properly.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 02/28/2009 05:55 PM
I don't think Dr. Woodward's work has anything to do with Brown and he'd probably be the first to tell you he has no confidence in Brown's work for several reasons.

On the issue of relativistic mass, Dr. Woodward's thrusters and rotators do not generate relativistic speeds in the dielectric.  The term "relativistic mass" is really only used to point out that his theory does not state that fluctuations in rest mass can be achieved.  Fluctuating rest mass would indeed make the universe an unsafe place.  Rather, his theory shows us how to temporarily fluctuate the entire energy state of mass, as per wiki's explanantion:

"The term relativistic mass is also used, and this is the total quantity of energy in a body or system (divided by c2). The relativistic mass (of a body or system of bodies) includes a contribution from the kinetic energy of the body, and is larger the faster the body moves, so unlike the invariant mass, the relativistic mass depends on the observer's frame of reference. However, for given single frames of reference and for closed systems, the relativistic mass is also a conserved quantity.

Because the relativistic mass is proportional to the energy, it has gradually fallen into disuse in among physicists[1]. There is disagreement over whether the concept remains pedagogically useful.[2][3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass

In our case, drawing this distinction between rest or invarient mass and relativistic mass is a useful one because it sets aside objections physicists might otherwise rightly raise, that rest mass is indeed invarient and cannot be fluctuated.  Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/02/2009 01:55 AM
I don't think Dr. Woodward's work has anything to do with Brown and he'd probably be the first to tell you he has no confidence in Brown's work for several reasons.

I know Woodward was primarily trying to come up with a scenario where a Dean Drive type model would actually work and not be neutralized by simple newtonian physics. The key of course is as he has used mach's principle.

The reason Brown's work came to mind is due to his work on high energy/voltage capacitors, the Biefeld Brown Effect, and associated patents.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/02/2009 11:41 PM
GI-thruster, I believe Robert Forward came up with a "reactionless drive" using relativistic mass, but to get anything useful out of required using something akin to neutronium IIRC.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/03/2009 07:37 PM
Robert Forward did have a scheme for reactionless thrust but I believe it required an amount of constant, negative mass.  Woodward's thruster may make use of negative mass though only through temporary fluctuation.  If the fluctuation is > 100%, then the mass will go negative during its fluctuation but this is not required for his thrusters.  Both the MLT and UFG have apparently produced thrust without going to a dm>m condition however, we believe that a much greater thrust efficiency can be had by crossing this "wormhole boundary" of achieving a dm>m condition.  In fact, both Paul's MLT from several years ago and his current work are in "wormhole territory" where if no new conditions exist for mass fluctuation, we should see very large thrusts compared to what we should have with the more mundane dm<m conditions Woodward has till now been driving.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/03/2009 08:07 PM
I see lots of handwaving and damned little math in this thread.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/03/2009 09:56 PM
We're waving because we're all friends here. If you want to get up to speed just on the issue of Dr. Woodward's work, you can click the links posted about it on 7/6/8, 7/7/8, 9/17/8, 9/26/8 and 2/28/9.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 03/04/2009 01:10 PM
Dear Star Drive;

Thank you very much for your update. If I understand you correct the data-to-noise ratio of the latest tests showed a dB-ratio of ~10dB or 10-to-1. This is IMHO fantastic news. With such a large data-to-noise ratio the viability of the theory, the experiments and therefore the MLT thrusters is IMHO nearly a given.

On the other side the Newton/Watt ratio of 0,1 – 10 Newton / Watt you talk about seems rather extreme. :) I hope these values are not too good to be true. According to a PDF I read a few days ago a normal Toyota Corolla needs around 500 Newton to overcome the drag (body + wheels) at 100kmh (~ 62mph). The car engine needs ~13,5 KW of power for that. On the other side a highly efficient MLT would need only 50 Watts for the same task. So a MLT could be up to 270 times more efficient as a normal car engine which drives the wheels. That’s astounding.
I really hope that the calculations about the very high efficiency of the MLT’s are correct because this would open a complete new world regarding everything transportation, starting with simple pedal powered vehicles up to behemoth star cruisers. But I fear that it could not be so because it sounds too good to be true. 

Kind regards

Manfred
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/04/2009 04:00 PM
From a private note:

"I was reading the STAIF presentation from 2007 and in the end there was a time scale with conclusion.
What would mean G/I Power Generators?"


If one is using an MLT or UFG and running in wormhole territory, meaning the mass fluctuation is > 100%; then the amount of kinetic energy generated by the thruster ought to be more than the electrical energy supplied to the thruster.  What this means is such a thruster can be connected to the flywheel of a generator and will produce net electrical energy.  Such a generator system seems at first glance to be a violation of conservation but such is not the case.  The thruster is actually "harvesting" momentum and energy from the gravinertial flux of the universe so such a system is not any different than say a coal fired power plant but in our case, the coal is replaced by the GI field.

What this would mean for space transport, any transport; is the possibility of creating generally "rangeless" craft that are limited in range only by things other than their propulsion needs.  Much like nuclear powered Navy vessals, the operational issues then become things like foodstuffs.  That's a headache I think we'd all prefer over the very limited kind of space travel we've had till now.

Hope that answers your question.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/04/2009 06:43 PM
Star-Drive,

Could the LOX/Hydrogen fuel cells be replaced with radioisotope thermoelectric generator like one in Cassini probe for a Mars mission?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/04/2009 08:35 PM
Unfortunately, there are at least 10 years before Bussard generators will appear.

Star-Drive,

What is the velocity limit of WarpStar-1? I guess it could be used for missions beyond Mars, although I would dream to go there first :)

One more thing: What would look like a liftoff of a WarpStar-1?


As we extract energy from this G/I energy resource, the average kinetic energy temperature of the universe's atoms will decrease until they hit absolute zero.
Which means that nature is giving the ship superconductivity without the need of the material itself (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/04/2009 10:33 PM
That would be a fantastic ride around Sol 8)

The size of the craft is not an issue, I guess. Because the next step of the space exploration era is space colonization, and therefore much payload capacity will be needed for transporting materials to the moon, Mars and the other planets. Human presence should spread in Sol, we all agree.

Now that I'm little more familiar with WarpStar-1, I think it is intended to be the craft that would be able to show new ways of propulsion that far outstrip modern chemical rockets. It combines old and new technologies: the bond past-future. I fully support it's development and it realy should be taken seriously by the whole aerospace sector.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/05/2009 12:11 AM
Dear Star Drive;

Thank you very much for your update. If I understand you correct the data-to-noise ratio of the latest tests showed a dB-ratio of ~10dB or 10-to-1. This is IMHO fantastic news. With such a large data-to-noise ratio the viability of the theory, the experiments and therefore the MLT thrusters is IMHO nearly a given.

On the other side the Newton/Watt ratio of 0,1 – 10 Newton / Watt you talk about seems rather extreme. :) I hope these values are not too good to be true. According to a PDF I read a few days ago a normal Toyota Corolla needs around 500 Newton to overcome the drag (body + wheels) at 100kmh (~ 62mph). The car engine needs ~13,5 KW of power for that. On the other side a highly efficient MLT would need only 50 Watts for the same task. So a MLT could be up to 270 times more efficient as a normal car engine which drives the wheels. That’s astounding.

You shouldn't think of the MLT as an engine - it's more like a sail in terms of how it gets its energy. Consider that Columbus sailed all the way across the Atlantic with the only energy expenditure from his vehicle being the work down to trim the sails. The MLT simply uses environmental energy and environmental mass. If it were solar-powered it would use zero onboard energy. Heck, solar sails are a propellantless drive. If you make one big and thin enough you could get similar performance to the MLT - it's just unwieldy is all.

Quote
I really hope that the calculations about the very high efficiency of the MLT’s are correct because this would open a complete new world regarding everything transportation, starting with simple pedal powered vehicles up to behemoth star cruisers. But I fear that it could not be so because it sounds too good to be true. 

Kind regards

Manfred


Sometimes you just get big technological leaps. Several decades ago we cracked the atom, and that could have taken us all over the solar system and to the nearer stars except for the political issues.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/05/2009 12:20 AM
Sith:

Any self-contained electrical power generation system with sufficient power output will do, but high efficiency approaches are preferable since they minimize the size and mass of the radiators required to dump the waste heat from the power source.  That is why I prefer direct energy to electricity conversion cycles that avoid the Carnot Cycle such as fuel cells or regenerative fuel cells tied to photovoltaic systems for inside Mars orbit work, and Bussard's aneutronic wiffleball fusion reactors with direct kinetic energy to electrostatic energy cycles that can conversion efficiencies greater that 80% needed for deep space work outside of Mars orbit.

BTW, I have one final note on the above question on whether the MLT 1.0 N/W operating efficiency GOAL is too good to be true.  The TOTAL potential energy wrapped up in the gravinertial (G/I) field, i.e. how big is this G/I field gas tank anyway, is tied directly to the total amount of kinetic energy of every atom in the causally connected (13.7 billion light year radius) universe, AND any potential Dark Energy tied up in "The Quantum Vacuum".  As we extract energy from this G/I energy resource, the average kinetic energy temperature of the universe's atoms will decrease until they hit absolute zero.  However, we would first have to drain the 67% of the Universe’s mass/energy reserves wrapped up in the Dark Energy field before or in parallel with extracting the kinetic energy reserves of the sensible atoms and subatomic particles that make up the rest of the 33% of the universe’s mass/energy before we run this tank dry.   

Just to let you know how LARGE an energy reserve this is, the visible portion of the universe's mass/energy makes up ~5% of this available mass/energy reserve per the latest cosmological estimates and they place that figure at ~1x10^80 atoms plus many more subatomic particles like neutrinos.  If each atom in the universe has an average ~6.24x 10^-18 Joules (1.0 electron volt) of kinetic energy, which is an educated WAG on my part, then the total kinetic energy that could be conveyed by the G/I field to the MLT from this 5% resource is 6.24x10^-18 x 1.0x10^80 = 6.24x10^62 Joules.  A 15 Megaton H-bomb puts out ~6.3x10^16 Joules…

Now, if the universe is destined to suffer the "Big Rip" where the Quantum Vacuum's Dark Energy that makes up the rest of the universe’s mass/energy literally rips the universe apart in three-to-ten billion years or so, (See the latest copy of Astronomy Magazine"), our only solution to keep this from happening is for all the civilizations in the universe to extract as much energy as they can from the G/I field to keep this fate from happening!  :)   




Since the G/I energy is ultimately converted to local waste heat and blackbody radiation, if everybody does this across the universe then there is no net energy drain. You would reach a point where the pull of all the G/I taps creates a net cooling effect but that would be balanced by the waste heat energy of the G/I powered systems... unfortunately stars and galaxies without net heat input would get frozen. Their cores wouldn't notice it but the stellar atompsheres would get chilled and frozen out even though their cores are still fusing and running at millions of kelvin.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/05/2009 06:04 AM
Star-Drive,

I didn't follow anything since the begining of the thread, but I would like to know, does this G/I flux influence the mass of the craft? I mean that field is going to make Warp-Star1 light as a feather, isn't it? Which would make it even more economical :)   

However, at what rate would the time flow inside the craft when it is active and in space? Because we know from Einstein that time is relative to the gravitational body. Since the WarpStar uses G/I field, it'll have some time side effect? For example running slower or faster, time dilation (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/06/2009 05:54 AM
Star-Drive,

That's interesting. I had thought that the G/I effect was constrained to particles only, (ie the ions in the cap) but from what you're saying and from Woodward's explanation, that the mass variation is a result of a change in G/I local field strength?

So this mass variation field in fact is something like an artificial gravity well, or perhaps more accurately a kink in the local gravinertial field. This sounds to me a lot like good old fluid dynamics, where the MLT thruster forms something like a wing. Low pressure flow on top, high pressure below. This results in the counterintuitive situation of a gravity well below the vessel and an antigravity well in front. This is pretty useful - the drive could be used to pick up cargo (cows? UFO nuts?) and at the same time also seems to create a low pressure zone on top of the craft. I have no way of figuring this (I don't have any numbers for the resultant g-fields) but it seems like the MLT actually produces aerodynamic lift whilst static as well. It would also shunt debris aside and act as a kind of shield. However landings might be tricky as there could be a shower of loose rocks and soil rising up in certain spots.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/06/2009 06:54 PM
why did you think that the WarpStar-1 was a great way to start the M-E development process?
Because it somehow assembles a unique design of hybrid vehicle that is not completely propellantless, but the right step to it.
The Lorentz force involvement makes me feel it'll succeed.

If the G/I drives are mounted inside the vehicle as I've done in the WarpStar-1 prototype, it might create some interesting localized gravitational like anomalies in the crew cabin up and downwind of the momentum flux exhaust.
In that case time will flow faster or slower inside the craft?


If you transiently shield the local ions in the dielectric from this ambient G/I field thru local ionic accelerations, then momentarily the inertial mass of the ion(s) have to change as it responds to this local disturbance (Kink) in the G/I field.
Positive or negative ions?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 03/07/2009 02:23 PM
What kind of payload can this theoretical G/I propulsion lift compared to chemical rockets ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/07/2009 03:08 PM
I'm not sure it's fair to compare a theoretical thruster based upon an almost arbitrary thrust efficiency figure, 1 N/W; to an actual thruster like SSME, etc.  But so that you have an idea of what is possible, the 1N/W figure was chosen by Paul and worked into his WarpStar design because it is a reasonable figure.  If you read the paper, you'll get an idea.

WarpStar 1 is the size of a largish business jet.  It can take off and land vertically so needs almost no infrastructure support.  You can park it in a few spaces at Walmart.  It's fuel cells are regenerative so you can plug it in to recharge the fuels or more quickly just replace the generated water with H2 and O2 and strip the water back off ship on either Earth or the Moon.  Top off any LN for cryogenics, add cheese puffs and away you go.  Since it doesn't make a hypersonic reentry, there is almost no maintenance to be concerned with and it can easily make 3 round trip flights to the Moon/day dropping several tons of payload each trip.  A single WarpStar could build a habitable Moonbase for dozens of people all by itself in less than a month.

So you see, there is really no comparing it to rockets. . .the Millenium Falcon maybe. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 03/07/2009 03:22 PM
I'm not sure it's fair to compare a theoretical thruster based upon an almost arbitrary thrust efficiency figure, 1 N/W; to an actual thruster like SSME, etc.  But so that you have an idea of what is possible, the 1N/W figure was chosen by Paul and worked into his WarpStar design because it is a reasonable figure.  If you read the paper, you'll get an idea.

WarpStar 1 is the size of a largish business jet.  It can take off and land vertically so needs almost no infrastructure support.  You can park it in a few spaces at Walmart.  It's fuel cells are regenerative so you can plug it in to recharge the fuels or more quickly just replace the generated water with H2 and O2 and strip the water back off ship on either Earth or the Moon.  Top off any LN for cryogenics, add cheese puffs and away you go.  Since it doesn't make a hypersonic reentry, there is almost no maintenance to be concerned with and it can easily make 3 round trip flights to the Moon/day dropping several tons of payload each trip.  A single WarpStar could build a habitable Moonbase for dozens of people all by itself in less than a month.

So you see, there is really no comparing it to rockets. . .the Millenium Falcon maybe. . .

Ok sounds good, so what is now the biggest problem preventing development and deployment of such a vehicle in the near-term future ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/07/2009 03:46 PM
I'm not sure there's anything preventing development.  These things just take time.  Presently, the only person working on this full-time if Dr. Woodward.  Once DARPA gets its head out of its a$$ there should be funds for full time theoretical research and engineering development.  The main thing is to get the best people on this as their work-a-day jobs so we can see some real progress and we can't do that without a grant, etc.  So once the evidence is compelling enough for the people with the purses, we'll see action.  I should add that Dr. Woodward has many times refused financial support from Angel investors, etc. because he wants to see the level of evidence improved before he'll take money to move this along. 

If we don't see compelling evidence from the current rotator work by this June, or thrust evidence from March's high Q MLT sometime soon, then I think we'll see another UFG on the ARC Lite for testing by next fall and that should be enough for USG to take an active hand, IMHO.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/10/2009 05:31 AM
Lampy:

"That's interesting. I had thought that the G/I effect was constrained to particles only, (ie the ions in the cap) but from what you're saying and from Woodward's explanation, that the mass variation is a result of a change in G/I local field strength?"

You win the prize!  The M-E is first and foremost a G/I field effect theory based on the interactions between local ionic masses AND the ambient gravinertial field created by the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.  A G/I field that IS the causal agent of the property we call inertia.  If you transiently shield the local ions in the dielectric from this ambient G/I field thru local ionic accelerations, then momentarily the inertial mass of the ion(s) have to change as it responds to this local disturbance (Kink) in the G/I field.  (Visions of Obi-Wan talking about the “Force” now come to mind. :) )  Knowing how the bidirectional mass to G/I field interaction works and the rules that apply to that interaction contains the keys to low cost, faster and much safer inter-solar transportation and practical human crewed interstellar flight.

BTW, there is also another way to model the M-E mass fluctuations and that is via looking at them as QM based vacuum fluctuations in between the ions of the dielectric in question.  These quantum vacuum fluctuations (QVF) can be modeled as a very short lived and transient electron/positron pair neutral plasma with phonon induced pressure wave interactions that follow standard magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) rules, i.e., your fluid dynamics as applied to electrical plasmas.  The dielectric ions in this QVF model then act as obstructions to this plasma when the local dielectric ions are accelerated by an outside force, thus increasing the QVF density around the ions above the universe’s average QVF density of ~1.0x10^-26 kg/m^3. 

Dr. Harold (Sonny) White (NASA/JSC & Rice U.) has modeled the M-E as a Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation / MHD effect and his QVF/MHD spreadsheet tool predicts the observed thrust of my MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles' to within a factor of two.  I think we can be assured that when predicting how the gravinertial (G/I) field will respond to a given stimulus, hydrodynamic analysis tools will have to be used...


Hmmmm... so both theories predict a sort of attractive force at the bottom of the capacitor (I can almost picture a Lagrangian flow diagram in my head). The weird thing is there is always zero "flow" around the engine, it's kind of like a low-powered jet engine in a thick atmosphere until you get to relativistic speeds.

Have your tests accounted for these predicted local gravity variations? Are they at a level where they could affect the thrust measurements? From the photos of your apparatus so far I guess it wouldn't be measurable.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/10/2009 05:29 PM
Lampy, if memory serves, about a year ago there was a concern that the ARC Lite might have some vertical-horizontal coupling and that what we might have been seeing was a time averaged loss of mass.  Maybe Paul can remember better. But in any case, if the ARC Lite were assembled in "teeter totter" configuration, meaning the displacement of the arm were vertical rather than horizontal, then such phenomena as you describe probably could be studied.  They were not because the studies at that time had other goals but they could be studied in the future using existing apparatus.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/10/2009 09:37 PM
If we don't see compelling evidence from the current rotator work by this June, or thrust evidence from March's high Q MLT sometime soon, then I think we'll see another UFG on the ARC Lite for testing by next fall and that should be enough for USG to take an active hand, IMHO.

Update: Dr. Woodward announced today that he will begin construction of the next generation UFG this week (a pair of antagonistic stacks or "shuttler" design--gen 5), so we will probably be seeing more thrust tests from Fullerton before he goes on extended vacation in June. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/11/2009 02:05 PM
It'll be interesting to see if there's a consistent difference in force generated by the next gen UFG, based upon orientation in the Earth's field but I presume that sort of study will have to wait until Dr. Woodward is satisfied with the more general thrust studies.  Lets hope that happens sometime soon.  Also, perhaps Dr. Woodward can be cajoled into allowing us to paste up a graph of the most recent rotator data here when he starts moving if from Excel to Graph to PPT.  That could form the basis of some real interest and discussion.  As it is now, the rotator is demonstrating these two effects in anti-phase--electrostrictive and Mach-Effect--and he's showing the specific gee loading where the M-E goes > electrostriction, which is what theory predicts since electrostriction is not related to loading except for hydrostatic effects.  The data is certainly still young but it is most promising.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/16/2009 04:12 AM
The "graviton" model I've been using seems to come up with a lot of contradictory stuff - gravitational forces averaging over the amount of mass in the mini g-well, the gravity well being "blocked up" if there's too much mass in it etc. Assuming GR curvature seems to make it work more nicely.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/16/2009 09:08 AM
Please explain how these gees translate. This is obviously gross gees at some point in the cycle, not net thrust between opposing positive and negative thrusts.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/16/2009 11:17 AM
Quote from: Star-Drive link=topic=13020.msg371066#msg371066

With a constant 1.0 gee acceleration, the velocity limit is simply vel= vel-o + a*t where a= 9.81 m/sec^2 (1.0 gee) and t is 12 hour run time in seconds or 43,200 sec.  So the "burn-out" velocity for this configuration when the LOX/Hydrogen tanks run dry is 423,792 meters/sec or 423.792 km/sec.  If you want to go faster then add solar arrays or a fission based nuclear power plant like a SP-100 that can put out that same power for up to ten years.  Of coruse after only about 9 months at 1.0 gee you are going 99% the speed of light.

Lets do a very rough energy budget calculation. I'm even going to go well against my training and neglect momentum conservation.

Lets imagine a 1kg mass moving at 99% the speed of light. At this speed the best way of calculating kinetic energy is not KE=.5mv^2 but using the relativistic formula: Total energy = gamma * m * c^2 (c is the speed of light)

gamma = 1 / Sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )

now we are saying that v/c = .99, right? OK so after punching a few numbers gamma is a little over 7, but lets take 7 as a rough estimate.

(Note that actually the usual calculation for kinetic energy is just an approximation to this formula but we won't worry about that here)

so the total mass-energy of this speedy kilogram is actually 7kg. That is 6kg's worth of energy has been converted directly to energy in order to accelerate this single kilogram. (Note that we haven't considered how this has been done and the necessary inefficiencies of the method)

OK 6kg of energy. How much is that? Well its 54 * 10^16 J...

Next question is: how many seconds in 9 months? Thats just over 23 million seconds

What is the average power? 2.34 * 10 ^ 10 Watts - 23.4 Gigawatts (I can't imagine what Dr Emmot Brown would say: probably thats 19.3 lightning bolts - for nine months)

Don't forget, this is for 1 kilogram...

I'm going back to the reality of STS-119 coverage...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/16/2009 01:51 PM
Cel, you're bringing up an issue familiar to all on the Woodward mailing list though from a new standpoint.  The issue really is, how can there be so much mass fluctuation?  The energy equivalent is enormous. 

So you know, you only calculated a 700% fluctuation.  Paul March's current MLT build is designed around a 3,000,000% fluctuation.

So maybe the math isn't as simple as it seems to you?  The fact that mass can be fluctuated AT ALL is the real issue. . .the one you haven't grappled with yet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/16/2009 01:59 PM
Paul, your chart is saying that M-E scales approximately linearly with gee loading.  What I'm curious about is what we should expect with rectified thrust.  If one uses the same mechanism for both bulk acceleration and rectification, for example a UFG, then thrust ought to scale to acceleration^2?

It matters since we both know rotators are not the best way to build thrusters.  We need a Mhz UFG or MLT with displacements in the uM range.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/16/2009 03:07 PM
Cel, you're bringing up an issue familiar to all on the Woodward mailing list though from a new standpoint.  The issue really is, how can there be so much mass fluctuation?  The energy equivalent is enormous. 

So you know, you only calculated a 700% fluctuation.  Paul March's current MLT build is designed around a 3,000,000% fluctuation.

So maybe the math isn't as simple as it seems to you?  The fact that mass can be fluctuated AT ALL is the real issue. . .the one you haven't grappled with yet.

All I was describing is the effect of relativity, which is necessary because the speed of light is observed to be constant in all reference frames. I ws trying to highlight that the average power requirements were very large to reach 99% the speed of light in 9 months.

I am not familar with the Woodward mainling list. I've never heard of mass fluctuation. Changing the mass of something? Well according the the mass-energy equivalence that we all know and love, this would see, like energy from nothing... Is that what you are proposing?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/16/2009 03:17 PM

C:

As GI-Thruster has already noted, using E=m*c^2 in the way you’ve done to gage the energy flux during an inertial mass fluctuation is correct from one point of view, but it’s not the appropriate way to view this G/I mass fluctuation phenomenon, for it misses the whole point of Sciama’s and Woodward’s view on the origins of inertia.  In their conjectures, derivations, and Woodward’s data, the origins of inertial mass, when looking at a local mass in the laboratory frame of reference, is being due to the local mass’ gravity/inertial (G/I) field interactions.   A G/I field created by all the rest of the mass/energy contained in the causally connected universe.  In this conjecture, if we were in a universe with only one local chunk of mass, it would have almost no inertial mass properties since there would be very little G/I field interactions to impede its acceleration.

Sciama and Woodward models this G/I interaction of the accelerated mass with a universal G/I field as a transient disturbance in the G/I field around the accelerated mass, which transiently shields the mass from its G/I field energy source, which in turn reduces the effective inertial mass of the locally accelerated mass as long as that disturbance in the G/I field exists close by the mass in question.  However, since this G/I disturbance propagates spherically away from the local mass at the speed of light, this single transient mass fluctuation event of the local mss does not last very long, and that is why any quasi-steady state G/I thruster has to use an alternating current (ac) excitation to keep producing these transient G/I shielding events around the G/I thruster mass in question.

If you have more questions, I advise that you read through Dr. Woodward’s CSUF entry on gravitation and the origins of inertia that can be found at this URL by clicking on the Gravitation topic in his Research Interests:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html



I have not understood your jargonistic repsonse. You've talked about a "G/I field" and "a quasi-steady state G/I thruster". I don't know what these terms mean. I appreciate your offer of reading more at the URL that you have provided. Howevet, if you want me to believe in what you are telling me then you will have to be brief. Honestly, if its real physics, I can take it. How is it that you can create mass from nothing? If it can be done, why does it not happen naturally and spontaneously?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 03/16/2009 05:28 PM
We really need a thread that outlines the exotic technologies we discuss here with glossaries and links to relevant literature.

Moving on, I'd like to summarize some earlier concerns I had with the MLT (Machian Lorentz Thruster) device.

1. We still need to demonstrate that it generates thrust (linear force) not torque (rotational force). I have a good deal of optimism that this is a thrust effect, but I think it needs to be resolved.

2. The equation given in this thread for estimating the thrust doesn't appear to scale to frequencies where masses are vibrating at relativistic velocities.

3. The Machian model (the part where the device is pushing against the rest of the universe) doesn't add much. I think we would be better served to view the device as a generator of gravitational and electromagnetic waves (in some combination which carry the momentum needed to generate thrust) in a particular direction. Among other things, the latter is a local theory and doesn't depend on the  extent of the universe.

4. If above model idea is accurate and the MLT device generates net thrust, then we should be able to work in reverse. That is, the MLT should be able to detect gravitational and electromagnetic waves (of similar characteristics) as well as generate them. If it can detect pure gravitational waves and generate gravitational waves, then we have the basis for a communication system that can penetrate considerable mass like the Earth or the Sun. Even if a single element has extremely poor resolution (think a directional antenna with very large lobes or a telescope that picks up and blurs everything in the large portion of sky that it is pointed at), a large enough phased array of them could have the desired resolution.

5. We should be able to test just how fast gravitational waves propagate. Are they instantaneous or move at the speed of light?

6. A similar device, the QVF/MHD (Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation/MagnetoHydroDynamics) thruster doesn't appear to me to be viable. It depends on the existence of exploitable fluctuations in the vacuum background. I see the current arguments in favor of QVF/MHD thrusters as analogous to saying that you can make money from the stock market merely because you know the stock market fluctuates.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/16/2009 06:36 PM
Karl, I'll take a stab at responding to your 6 points above while keeping an eye out to try to precise some terms so Cal can take advantage of the thread without backing up six months.  I agree Mach-Effect (M-E) work done on the rotator, the  UFG (Unified Force Generator) and the MLT (Mach-Lorentz Thruster) deserve their own thread, especially in light of the new evidence pouring out of the Fullerton lab daily.  Also I agree that it is probably best to leave the alternate, ZPF based explanation aside since it is an alternate explanation, Dr. White has some issues still unresolved and his theory has not yet been peer reviewed. 
 
As to your points:
 
1)  Just because a thruster is on a measurement devise with a moment arm does not mean one is measuring torque.  The fact that it is the measurement apparatus that includes a moment arm and not the thruster should be enough to show this.  All of the thrusters to date, both UFG and MLT have demonstrated not torque, but linear thrust.  However, it really does not matter, Karl.  All torque based pseudo-thrusters like Dean Drives always have their torque time average to zero.  They cannot work because they entail an intrinsic failure to conserve momentum.  Dean Drives only appear to work under certain conditions but they do not work.  They time average their force, linear or torque; to zero.  This is not the case for the UFG or MLT.
 
2)  Sorry, I'm not following.  What is vibrating at relativistic velocities?
 
3)  Karl, in order to postulate a mass fluctuation two previous theories have to be true: a) Mach's Principle, posits the gravitic interconnection between all the universe's various parts is the cause of inertia and b) General Relativity.  If you do not hold to Mach's Principle, there is no theoretical basis for expecting mass fluctuations of any sort.  Only Jim Woodward's theory predicts mass fluctuations or Mach Effects (M-E) and it is only able to do so because it relies upon Mach's Principle.
 
4)  This has almost nothing to do with gravitational waves and they are not the best way to look at this issue.
 
5)  All GR theorists believe that gravity propagates at the speed of light.  It is not instantaneous. 
 
6)  As you say, if there's to be discussion of Dr. White's theory, it deserves its own thread.
 
Cal, M-E theory clearly says that mass can be temporarily fluctuated under very specific conditions.  When those conditions obtain, the mass will fluctuate positively and negatively, twice each cycle.  So for instance given the data above posted by StarDrive, the rf driving frequency is 40 kHz.  the mass fluctuation is really found at the 2 omega or at 80 khz.  Lets suppose you have a 40 khz thruster rather than the rotator we've been talking about.  The rotator demonstrates M-E but it does not generate thrust.  For thrust you need to rectify the M-E as is done in a UFG or MLT.
 
Lets take a UFG or MLT operating at 40 khz and 50% mass fluctuation with two g of active mass.  That will mean that during the first and third quarter cycle, the mass will fluctuate to 3 g and during the second and last quarter cycle, the mass will fluctuate to 1 g.  What we do is push it in one direction when it's heavy, and pull it in the other direction when it's light.  That yields net thrust.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/16/2009 06:47 PM

Woodward's conjecture does NOT create mass from nothing. 


Good start

Quote
His conjecture states that the APPARENT inertial mass of a local mass can be transiently REDUCED by shielding it from the universal G/I field that give rise to the property we call inertia.

This actually reminds me of my MPhys project which was a speculative investigation into quantised particle masses being fixed by the presence of a fifth dimension. Great fun and perfectly legitimate theoretical physics (a precursor to the infamous string theory) but not the basis to begin building machines. OK on...

Quote

This G/I field shielding effect is proportional to the local mass’ applied acceleration times the double derivative of the energy flux passing through the cap dielectric mass in question, so by definition it is a transient shielding effect in real systems.

My eyes almost glazed at this point but I pick up on dielectric. I know what that is. It's used in capacitors to increase the capacitance. So going back: acceleration times the second derivative.... with respect to what? Time? Position? Ambiguous to say the least. OK on...

Quote
As to why this mass fluctuation effect doesn't show up in everyday devices, it’s simply due to the fact that these transient mass fluctuations almost always time average to zero over one excitation period such as in the sine waves used in RF transmitters. 

RF, where back to electromagnetism. OK. You know, these mass fluctuations remind me of the well-known quantum mechanical effect of the pair creation of virtual particles. Is that what you mean? They happen on a time scale inversely proportional to the mass involved and so they are never directly observable. But you've confused me with your analogy of radio transmitters and sine waves.

Quote

The only way one could see a net thrust from such a device is if a third force is applied to the mass fluctuating dielectric mass in a push-heavy, pull-light force rectification process that has to be timed precisely with these time varying mass fluctuations or you end up with zip net forces.


Aha, a third force. I see. So far I count two forces, gravity and elecro-magnetism. Neither of these get us anywhere and so we need a third force. To get things moving. Yes. I agree.

Quote

Now, if you don’t like my “jargonistic” description of this M-E effect, which is my good faith effort to convey these ideas to folks who aren’t familiar with same, then all I can recommend to you now is to look up Woodward’s URL on this topic and the many other related physics papers in peer reviewed journals if you want to see and understand all the gory mathematical details contained in their derivations, and the experimental data backing them up. 


Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.

Quote
However, be prepared to spend several years in the process as I have done.

Cool.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/16/2009 07:46 PM
Dr. Woodward's PhD is in the history of gravity physics.  This is probably one reason he was able to solve as he did, because he was more intimately aware of those who had gone before him than the average PhD in physics.

Please don't miss the note I posted to you just above yours.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/16/2009 10:04 PM
Please explain how these gees translate. This is obviously gross gees at some point in the cycle, not net thrust between opposing positive and negative thrusts.

They are the radial bulk acceleration centripetal gees (9.81 m/sec^2) at the radius of the cap-ring when spun at the noted revolutions per second rotation rate.  You can calculate them from the known radius r = 0.056 meters of the cap-ring asssembly and the centripetal acceleration equation A= (tangential velocity)^2 / radius r.

OK, I can speak a bit of this cause I used to build mechanical models that used masses and changed the orbital radius as the mass went around the cycle (and likewise changed the orbital velocity, in a way that generated more centripital force on one side of the centrifuge than the other). My simulations of these models would subtract the small centripetal force on one side of the centrifuge from the larger force generated on the other side where the masses were moving at a higher angular velocity. While most of the g-forces cancelled each other out, the excess was the useful force imposed on the model to provide impulse.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 03/16/2009 11:09 PM
I won't push this again. Just pointing out unresolved issues and potential applications.

1. I already went over this months ago. Until the entire experiment, including power supply, is on that apparatus in a configuration that can distinguish between thrust and torque, there's still the danger that the MLT generates torque not thrust. Personally, I'm willing to wait till someone can generate enough thrust (or torque as the case may be) to easily verify this.

2. Let me elaborate. The capacitors in the MLT undergo periodic acceleration (say via vibration or rotation). As that acceleration increases, the capacitors will eventually reach relativistic speeds.

3. I point out here that one doesn't need the Machian principle. General Relativity and Maxwell's equations should do. We do not need to explain momentum transfer to the rest of the universe in the way you describe. The strength of my approach is that there doesn't even need to be mass in the rest of the universe. It is a strictly local explanation for the phenomenon.

4. Note the subject of this thread, "Propellantless Field Propulsion and application". Communication that can broadcast without much attenuation through the Earth at the speed of light could be a big money application of this technology. It'd greatly reduce the development cost of the propulsion application, if it exists, by creating a large market of off-the-shelf, relatively cheap components that should be able to generate reasonable levels of thrust.

5. We don't have sufficient experimental evidence of this aspect of general relativity. It's a near future application that could open up some money for MLT development. I consider it low-lying fruit.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/16/2009 11:27 PM
4. Note the subject of this thread, "Propellantless Field Propulsion and application". Communication that can broadcast without much attenuation through the Earth at the speed of light could be a big money application of this technology. It'd greatly reduce the development cost of the propulsion application, if it exists, by creating a large market of off-the-shelf, relatively cheap components that should be able to generate reasonable levels of thrust.

Thats not the sort of communication hes speaking of. What he's talking about is the Feinman interpretation of quantum mechanics of the path integrals. For instance, optical refraction happens cause the speed of light in glass, for instance, is slower than in air or vacuum, as a result, the virtual photon follows every possible path between point a and b through air and glass, but becomes real when the fastest path is found and the probability cloud is collapsed soonest. Quantum entangled pairs do a similar thing except their path integrals includes paths backwards in time to communicate the most effectively.

Feinman had this breakthrough when he started thinking about how so many nuclear reaction trees are equally valid with T going positive or negative. He figured out an anti-photon is really a photon going backwards in time, for instance. The main reason why there is so much matter left after the big bang is that there was an equal amount of antimatter left after both sides annihilated each other, but the antimatter left over was going backwards in time.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/16/2009 11:39 PM
Karl,

1) You don't understand conservation.  You're drawing a distinction now for half a year that is completely spurious.  All momentum is conserved, linear and angular alike and your insistence that others need to cow tow to your specifications simply demonstrate you do not understand the issues at hand.

There are reasons to put the entire thruster and power system on the ARC Lite arm but they have nothing to do with conservation.  They concern protocol issues and are at this point, truly irrelevant.

2) No.  The speeds of the ceramic lattice attained in MLT's and UFG's do not come close to relativistic and will not so long as we continue to work outside wormhole territory where dm<m is the case.  You can do your own calculations here if you like.  Try this calculator and put in the figures for contemporary experiement: solve for A and provide F=40,000 and D =0.001mm.  You will not get relatavistic V's and we don't need them:

http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/calcsinm.htm?col=col1&V11=&F11=&A21=&F21=&V31=&A31=&F12=&D12=&A22=&F22=&A32=&D32=&what=A&F13=40000&D13=.001&F23=&V23=&V33=&D33=&A14=&D14=&V24=&D24=&A34=&V34=&units=Metric&submit=Calculate

3) I'm sorry Karl, but if you have another theory that posits mass fluctuation, please bring it forward.  You're making a vacuous claim here.  Only Jim Woodward has such a theory.  I know because I was paid to research this and I know, just as LockMart knows, that only Jim Woodward has such a theory.

4) If you want to pursue High Frequency Gravity Waves for communications, track James Baker and the Chinese effort but know that Baker is not offering propulsion.  He's 40 orders magnitude below what is needed for propulsion.  Check:

http://www.gravwave.com/

5) As I said, ALL GR theorists believe that gravity propagates at light speed.  If you know better, show us what you know.  GR says you're wrong here.

Nothing against you, Karl.  We need guys like you tracking what's happening with M-E research and again, let me offer you the invite to the mailing list should you take a serious interest.  Just let me know.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 03/17/2009 03:14 AM
1. Conservation of angular momentum is not violated. In the Machian model, it's easy to generate torque. Push the rest of the universe from spot A on a rigid structure and an opposite oriented push from a different spot B. The spatial difference between the otherwise equal and opposite forces generates torque. Angular momentum is conserved because either a) you are rotating the rest of the universe Machian style, or b) your gravitational waves (or possibly other particle/wave phenomena) are carrying away angular momentum. Either way you chose to explain it, angular momentum is conserved. There is experimental support too. We know it can happen from studying the orbital decay of binary pulsars (which collectively lose angular momentum to the rest of the universe).

As you probably can guess, I really don't see a serious distinction between these viewpoints. My take however is that abstracting out the interaction with the rest of the universe (which in my view is what is happening when you consider a Machian model) means you are losing some information about the nature of that interaction. For example, what is the flow of energy and momentum from the MLT?

2. I don't have any concerns about the model below dm<m. But I do disagree with your interpretation of the dm>m region, particular your use of the term "wormhole". Since the physical experiments are well in the dm<m range, I don't see a serious issue here.

3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).

4. Thanks for the tip.

5. It still remains that there is an observation gap here.  Not every physicist buys into general relativity. And even if there were uniform consensus, there are on occasion experiments to verify the consensus. Keep in mind that experimental physicists find ever shrinking upper bounds on the mass of a photon even though it is generally accepted that the mass of the photon is zero. Novel observations that back a commonly accepted view still are useful.

GI-Thruster, thanks for the invite. I'll send you my email address.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/17/2009 04:43 PM
Em, yes. . .BOB Baker.  I knew that.  :-)

In case I haven't been clear, there's a large number of tech savvy persons both writing in this thread and lurking.  If any of you want to be included on Jim Woodward's weekly general mailing so you're up to date as to the work at Fullerton, please drop me a note.  Write a sentence or two about who you are, what you do and why you're interested to track progress at Fullerton and Dr. Woodward may include this as an introduction to the list when he adds you, so that others know a little about you.

The general list is NOT a discussion list.  It is an update list to those in USG and private industry who want to keep tabs on the progress at Fullerton.  If however you'd like to be involved in discussions of the physics, engineering, data analysis, etc., you can write me or Paul March and we'll include you in those sorts of discussions.  It's a great way to learn about Mach Effects and where we hope to see this all go in the future.  Just drop me a note and I'll write you back from my normal email.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/18/2009 07:06 AM
3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).


Any torques generated can be nulled to create precessionary thrust by using two counterrotating devices. I've also done this on a hydraulic model.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/18/2009 07:11 AM

Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.


Woodward has his BS and MA in Physics. Trying to discredit him as some sort of sociologist playing at physics wont work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 03/18/2009 10:52 AM
3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).

Any torques generated can be nulled to create precessionary thrust by using two counterrotating devices. I've also done this on a hydraulic model.

Precession is a torque. I have no idea what precessionary thrust is.

But come to think of it, there are mechanical ways to convert torque into thrust. If I have a spinning wheel (say a donut-shaped rotating space station and I release mass that was clamped to the wheel, then I have generated thrust. The released mass (which is moving) is the reaction mass, and my station must have an equal and opposite momentum in order to preserve momentum of the system. Airplane propellers immersed in atmosphere are another example. These examples involve some sort of propellant, so I don't know how relevant they would be to us in this thread.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: LegendCJS on 03/18/2009 11:18 AM

Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.


Woodward has his BS and MA in Physics. Trying to discredit him as some sort of sociologist playing at physics wont work.

We all want so badly for something like the Woodward effect to be true.  But everyone should know that its easier to trust a BS over a high school diploma, an MA  (what the hell is an MA anyway?  Physics is a science, why doesn't he have an MS?) over a BS, and a PhD over an MA or MS.

So you have to admit that a PhD who can back up Woodward's derivations and experimental explanations would significantly help the credibility.  Because despite how much I want it to be true, I was firmly convinced that its all not true by reading the J.H. Whealton report.  At http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111404.pdf. 

So I come to this thread asking if there is a formal rebuttal to the above in existence or in the works.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/18/2009 12:30 PM
As I said earlier. Woodward's PhD is in the History of Gravity Physics.  That's why it's considered a humanity.  It is however also Physics.

Yes, a formal rebuttal of the Oak Ridge Boys existed before they wrote the above.  They are obviously wrong in several ways and these were pointed out at length by both Dr. Woodward and by Tom Mahood.  I'll see if I can get hold of the rebuttal if you like.  It's long.  Longer than the ORB's complaint since answering an objection is far more work than making an objection.

So you know, the ORB's tried to do a replication of the work and failed.  They failed because they did not follow direction and their apparatus was flawed.  They then came up with these objections that demonstrate they can't do the math or high school physics (no joke.) 

So yeah, I'll see what I can get hold of for you or perhaps Paul has Tom's rebuttal?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/18/2009 12:44 PM
"But come to think of it, there are mechanical ways to convert torque into thrust. If I have a spinning wheel (say a donut-shaped rotating space station and I release mass that was clamped to the wheel, then I have generated thrust. The released mass (which is moving) is the reaction mass, and my station must have an equal and opposite momentum in order to preserve momentum of the system."

This is true.  FYI, the patent office is full of patents for propellantless propulsion by folks who thought they could get thrust from a gyroscope.  You can't because all momentum is conserved.  All these types of proposed propulsion devices have failed because they attempt to violate simple physics.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 03/18/2009 01:11 PM

Snip

They are obviously wrong in several ways

Snip

They failed because they did not follow direction and their apparatus was flawed.  They then came up with these objections that demonstrate they can't do the math or high school physics (no joke.) 


Sounds like the argument is applicable to both sides.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/18/2009 01:20 PM
Well, Jim, if you want to make an issue of the fact I can't do this sort of physics you can, but I was not around when this happened.  This trajedy occured years ago because the Oak Ridge Boys acted with a total disregard for the truth.  They had plenty of opportunity to learn from the guys at Fullerton and instead, maintained they had it all figured out.  They did not.  Now this paper is on record and the rotator is daily demonstrating these guys are wrong.

That's embarrassing. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mrmandias on 03/18/2009 01:25 PM

In case I haven't been clear, there's a large number of tech savvy persons both writing in this thread and lurking.  If any of you want to be included on Jim Woodward's weekly general mailing so you're up to date as to the work at Fullerton, please drop me a note.  Write a sentence or two about who you are, what you do and why you're interested to track progress at Fullerton and Dr. Woodward may include this as an introduction to the list when he adds you, so that others know a little about you.

Some of us who may not be interested in or able to join your discussion lists and mailing lists still appreciate the periodic updates in this forum.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/18/2009 03:21 PM
You're most welcome, mrmandias.

Legend,

"I was firmly convinced that its all not true by reading the J.H. Whealton report.  At

 http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111404.pdf. 

So I come to this thread asking if there is a formal rebuttal to the above in existence or in the works.:

There are three relevant papers Paul and I are trying to figure a way to post.  There is Tom's first response (this was all back in '97-2002) which I believe concerns chiefly the protocols used and the claim by ORNL that the Fullerton results can be explained as thermal effects.  There was Jim Woodward's response which is written at the level of a PhD physicist and which most people will not be able to grasp fully (myself included.) Finally there is a simple empirical study of the "California Booster", which utterly puts the cap on the ORNL complaint by showing they do not understand the physics.  In addition, there is a more history based telling of the story, a recounting of events that I'm trying to get clearance to post here as it is fascinating.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/18/2009 05:05 PM
Thanks Paul.  Lets see if I can load the cali booster paper. . .

And Legend, please do stop back and let us know what you think of these responses.

Update: my apologies to those 6 of you who have already DLed the wrong paper.  I had loaded one of the two Paul had already left for your appraisal.  Here attached should be the cali booster paper.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/19/2009 02:46 AM
A telling of these events by Jim Woodward:

The Oak Ridge Boys (1997 – 2002):

"In the fall, following the BPP Workshop, David Hamilton of the DoE Engineering Directorate contacted us at CSUF.  He was interested in doing a replication of the work going on in the lab and had secured preliminary support from higher level management.  The following January he, John McKeever (ORNL), Bruce Tuttle (ceramicist, Sandia NL), and Don King (Sandia) came out to CSUF to discuss their plans with Tom and me.  We were joined by Paul March (then working for Lockheed who had been tasked by Graham O’Neil to look into exotic propulsion schemes).  They told us of their intent to build devices considerably larger than those we had been working with – hockey pucks as they came to be called.  We cautioned them that scaling by a couple of orders of magnitude or more in one step was not an advisable approach.  They built hockey pucks nonetheless.  And the following September a couple of Sandia folks were back soliciting our suggestions.
 
The plans conveyed to us in the fall of ’98 indicated that our advice had been taken.  But at that time another issue came up.  One of the folks at ORNL hit upon the idea that consideration of the vdm/dt term in Newton’s second law had been ignored in the development of Mach effects, and that when it was taken into account, complete cancellation of expected effects occurred.  For a few weeks it looked like this might in fact be a reasonable argument (alas, even to me, notwithstanding that I had actually considered this possibility several years earlier and dismissed it for sound reasons).  Of those involved, only Paul March was clear headed enough (and stubborn enough not to be cowed by a bunch of physics types) to reject the argument.  vdm/dt is not irrelevant to consideration of a closed system (it completes ma + vdm/dt = 0 for a rocket for example, but it doesn’t mean that rockets do not accelerate).  But it is irrelevant for a Mach effect thruster (as one can always pick the instantaneous frame of rest of the thruster where vdm/dt = 0 for analysis).  vdm/dt, in the case of a Mach effect thruster, represents the momentum flux in the field which does not act on the thruster (as, analogously, it represents the momentum flux in the exhaust plume of a rocket which does not act on the rocket).

Getting folks to appreciate this point of elementary physics proved almost impossible in some cases.  Ultimately, a “California booster” was built to demonstrate that as a matter of fact vdm/dt “forces” do not necessarily act on the moving object undergoing a change in mass.

While this was transpiring, one of the Oak Ridge Boys had the clever idea that gravity had been ignored in the derivation of Mach effects.  Accordingly, he asserted that gravity had to be added into the Mach effect field equation.  Miraculously, when this was done, Mach effects disappeared!  (There was a sign error in this calculation.  Otherwise they would have gotten double gravity effects.)  No amount of explaining that the Mach effect derivation is a derivation of the gravity field equation (where the Poisson equation for gravity is recovered when time-dependent terms are set equal to zero) could convince them that gravity was already accounted for in the Mach effect field equation (that is, the d’Alembertian of the potential is equal to some source terms).

What really was going on at this time it seems is that the Oak Ridge Boys actually got the experiment they described to us in the fall of ’98 running in December of that year.  Almost immediately they got “interesting” results.  And the experiment was taken out of their hands.  Or so reliable sources (you know who you are) told us.  Repeated attempts to confirm this development with the local leader of the Oak Ridge Boys by Tom and me met with silence.  The rest of this story goes that the work, a black project that continued to yield “interesting” results was eventually abandoned when the extreme risks of working blind with the wormhole term were contemplated.  If there is anything to this story, then the Oak Ridge Boys’ attacks on Mach effects should be understood as a disinformation operation."

-------------------------

Just as an aside, I was talking with my brother the lawyer about all this today and he agrees with me that the most sensible interpretation of these events is that ORNL got positive results and some other USG branch such as CIA stepped in and handed them a gag order.  The work was moved and the scientists at ORNL would have gotten some small compensation.  I asked Rodg what he thought of hiring a private investigator to determine if there's a path of money to follow the scientists and he replied "You could do that.  That would be a great way to end up in jail.  This is classified national security stuff.  You sniff around, prepare to pay the consequences."
 
So maybe we just need to focus on generating thrust. . .

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/19/2009 05:55 AM

Snip

They are obviously wrong in several ways

Snip

They failed because they did not follow direction and their apparatus was flawed.  They then came up with these objections that demonstrate they can't do the math or high school physics (no joke.) 


Sounds like the argument is applicable to both sides.

Ya, I love it when you build something that works and some dude with a bit piece of sheepskin on his wall says its impossible for what is working to exist. That sort of event USED to be called 'scientific progress'.

Been there, done that, got the federal gag order.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/19/2009 12:27 PM
A friend was telling my brother how he loves doing advanced metallurgy except that there are no patents.  "What do you mean no patents? my brother, the one trained in patent law; asked.

"Oh yeah, every time anyone in this country comes up with something truly useful, USG turns up and takes it.  No one gets patents these days.  They just get settlements."

The land of the free. . .

Of course, if USG gagged the ORNL scientists rather than Jim Woodward, then they didn't even have to pay out much in the way of a settlement.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mrmandias on 03/26/2009 09:05 PM
I'm just a caveman lawyer, but if this theory can be experimentally verified, wouldn't it disprove, or at least require serious modifications to your current working model?

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23198/
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/27/2009 01:49 AM
I'm not fit to pass judgement on this either but until a physicist happens along I should point out that the arxiv site is not peer reviewed.  It is a place where some folks post early works but most times, where cranks post only works that would never pass scrutiny with a real journal.  You'd be amazed at the rubbish that can be found there.  Says nothing about your find, however; save that it needs a real review.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 03/27/2009 03:58 AM
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kneecaps on 03/27/2009 08:22 AM
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility


 ;D   I second that!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/27/2009 08:51 AM

Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.


Woodward has his BS and MA in Physics. Trying to discredit him as some sort of sociologist playing at physics wont work.

MA = Master of Arts. Seems he gave up science after his first degree!!! I, on the other hand, am a first class MPhys = Master of Physics.

Outranked and overruled! Hehe
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/27/2009 08:53 AM
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility




I disagree, Jim. This thread turned to crap at approximately this point:

The only true way to make a starship is to be able to create a spacedrive that can modifiy gravity and/or inertia.  Everthing else talked about here except perhaps the EM drive is just for use on solar system scale missions. 

Gene Rodenberry pretty much nailed it when he created the Starship Enterprise that was equipped with inertia modification "impulse-drive" system for solar system based travels and a wormhole based "warp-drive" for interstellar jumps measured in days to weeks and not tens to hundreds of years for both the ship crew and the folks back home.  If any of you are curious how this might be done, we have to look at the confulence of General Relativity and Quntum Mechancis to first find the means to transiently modify the inertial properties of mass by manipulating its stored energy and bulk acceleration of that mass relative to the distant stars.  That Mach/Lorentz technology will provide us the Startrek like "impluse drive" we need to start down this path.  We then use this same "gravinertial" technology to create traversalble wormholes shortcuts through spacetime that our starships can use to star hop.   

If you think this is all science fiction that's your privilege, but the peer reviewed experimental data showing that this is all possible with enough development effort put into it over the next 25-to-50 years is readily aviable on the web and elsewhere, like the American Institute of Physics (AIP) if you care to look for it. 

These are people who are trying to shoe-horn reality into fantasy. It makes me feel quite ill.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kneecaps on 03/27/2009 09:37 AM

These are people who are trying to shoe-horn reality into fantasy. It makes me feel quite ill.

Of even greater concern to me, is how it can all sound feasible to the layman. Large swaths of society simply take things they read on the internet at face value. Pseudo/Bad science can sound very attractive.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/27/2009 09:50 AM
It is playing to peoples fantasies and half-held beliefs. Its in the same league as cold-reading and sayances. For the most part I feel that people can believe what they like, so long as they can take reasonable criticism. However, this website is made of better stuff and I'm chatting away here merely to draw attention so that this thread might be closed down...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kneecaps on 03/27/2009 09:58 AM
It is playing to peoples fantasies and half-held beliefs. Its in the same league as cold-reading and sayances. For the most part I feel that people can believe what they like, so long as they can take reasonable criticism. However, this website is made of better stuff and I'm chatting away here merely to draw attention so that this thread might be closed down...

Closing it down just fuels the zeal....
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mrmandias on 03/27/2009 01:43 PM
These folks aren't asking for money and they're actually doing experiments.  What's the harm in that?  And, no, by harm I don't mean offending someone's self-important certainty about how things work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/29/2009 08:59 AM
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility


Jim, I've had more experience running up against the government classifying 'inconvenient' patent applications that you have any idea about.

Lets start with the guy who invented the underwater microphones used by the Navy for sub detection today. That guy invented them to listen to whales. When he submitted the patent, the Navy classified the design cause it was so good, came to his lab and seized all his equipment, and now in order to use his own invention he has to ask the Navy for permission to use their equipment.

Imagine how THAT feels.

Theres plenty more stories like that where that one came from.

How about cutting it with attacking people who complain about getting burned by the security apparatus?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/30/2009 05:48 PM
If nothing else, threads like this keep the real spaceflight-related threads cleaner. :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 03/30/2009 06:10 PM
It is playing to peoples fantasies and half-held beliefs. Its in the same league as cold-reading and sayances. For the most part I feel that people can believe what they like, so long as they can take reasonable criticism. However, this website is made of better stuff and I'm chatting away here merely to draw attention so that this thread might be closed down...

... which is a poor negative motive. The guys pushing this have proposed a physics theory to explain all this so this isn't just a Keshe fantasy dream. Now it maybe the physics is fundamentally wrong somewhere and this goes nowhere but this thread would still be interesting even then in showing how new advanced physics theorems get proposed and either accepted or rejected in light of experimental data. It's up to negative guys like you to find flaws in either the theorem or the data rather than just point and laugh. People laughed at Newton and Einstein too because their ideas were so fantastic and so out of everyday experience. If however on the off chance this is all true, then well, NSF would have had yet another public scoop ;).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 03/31/2009 12:02 AM
Actually, nobody probably ever laughed at the ideas of Newton and Einstein. Nor to be honest, do I hear much in the way of laughter in this thread either. My personal opinion has been that some ideas are relatively practical even to the point of having potential near future application while others are likely to never be developed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/31/2009 12:36 PM
It is playing to peoples fantasies and half-held beliefs. Its in the same league as cold-reading and sayances. For the most part I feel that people can believe what they like, so long as they can take reasonable criticism. However, this website is made of better stuff and I'm chatting away here merely to draw attention so that this thread might be closed down...

If you have an issue with it then you can always report it to a moderator. As this concept was originally included as part of NASA's breakthrough propulsion research then I see no reason why it shouldn't be here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/31/2009 09:58 PM
Just a few quick comments as I only skimmed this last page and only have a few minutes:

mlorrey: "Jim, I've had more experience running up against the government classifying 'inconvenient' patent applications that you have any idea about."

Yes well, anyone familiar with the way the law is written, and why it is so written, has some sympathy here.  The law is written to allow USG to "take" any technology they can convince the proper federal judge is in the nation's defense interests.  That is fact beyond dispute.  And as I believe I have already posted, there are many fields such as metallurgy that don't even grant patents anymore because USG takes EVERY useful technology and pays a settlement, rather than allow other nations access to what become "state secrets."

Marsavian: "The guys pushing this have proposed a physics theory to explain all this so this isn't just a Keshe fantasy dream."

To be clear, Dr. Woodward's discovery concerning how to connect Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR) to Mach's Principle (so named by Einstein himself) came years before he began seeing technological applications for his theory.  He was working on the origin of inertia issue, not propulsion engineering.  His patents came years after his peer reviewed papers published in places like Foundations of Physics.  Getting a patent granted means nothing with regards the technology is viable.  Getting your theory past peer review is an entirely different matter.  Dr. Woodward is a Ph.D in the history of gravity physics and anyone who reviews his publicly available work will be instantly impressed with the tremendous breadth and width of his knowledge, especially concerning General Relativity.  He regularly demonstrates mastery in this subject, unlike those posting in this thread who claim to "overrule" others because they earned a masters degree.

Lampy: "As this concept was originally included as part of NASA's breakthrough propulsion research then I see no reason why it shouldn't be here."

Yes, in fact, in addition to being identified by Marc Millis as viable technology needing further research during the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project (BPP); until funding cuts at MSC, Tony Robertson was leading official NASA discovery science on the MLT.  That work ended when VSE and all the budget cuts came along, because of the budget cuts--not because the technology seemed fictional.  NASA reviewed all this years ago and chose to do this research because they know this is worth doing.

Finally, if I may offer my own aside here--this is the Advanced Concepts folder.  The whole point of the folder is to consider future concepts that are not flying yet and perhaps never will.  Of course there will be some dispute whether a technology that has yet to prove itself is a viable technology.

When I was contracted as a philosopher of technology to survey all the hair-brained propulsion schemes out there, and let me tell you there are more than a few; in order to identify any technologies that can be considered "emergent", I used two criteria to distinguish between what is seemingly legit, and what is garbage.  I look for both a) consistent, peer-reviewed theory and b) empirical evidence.  I'm pretty harsh in my judgements about what meets these criteria and after many long months came to the conclusion that ONLY Dr. Woodward's M-E theory met both my criteria.  Some months afterward I found out that LockMart had done the same study (their "Millennial Study") and had come to the same conclusion.

So, if someone here wants to call this "Ooogie Booogie" science, I suggest you skip me and go hassle the Ph.D physicists at LockMart.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/05/2009 12:13 AM
Quote
When I was contracted as a philosopher of technology to survey all the hair-brained propulsion schemes out there, and let me tell you there are more than a few; in order to identify any technologies that can be considered "emergent", I used two criteria to distinguish between what is seemingly legit, and what is garbage.  I look for both a) consistent, peer-reviewed theory and b) empirical evidence.  I'm pretty harsh in my judgements about what meets these criteria and after many long months came to the conclusion that ONLY Dr. Woodward's M-E theory met both my criteria.  Some months afterward I found out that LockMart had done the same study (their "Millennial Study") and had come to the same conclusion.

So, if someone here wants to call this "Ooogie Booogie" science, I suggest you skip me and go hassle the Ph.D physicists at LockMart.

If I'm not mistaken Boeing also conducted their own AG studies but I think theirs was more along the line of the superconductor-related anomalies researched by Podlentkov. Thanks for the heads up about the Millenial Study, I didn't know the M-E theory was in there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/05/2009 12:36 AM
My pleasure Lampy.  BTW, Boeing did contact Podlentkov about his work and offered to bankroll some investigation there, but Pod wanted an ungodly amount of money, essentially to be treated as royalty.  There have been others to contact Pod but there is still a vast disconnect between what's been claimed and what's been verified.  There haven't ever been any verifications of Pod's work and since there is no theory to explain the effect claimed, I can't personally put much stock in it.  There are just so many Russian frauds going around in the field that it makes no sense to invest.  Same with the MAK study which is essentially a Searl rip-off.  I once was talking with the American investor who was paying for the Russian MAK study.  The Russians had quite a team on staff and some impressive hardware.  Still, they had no results and like Searl, no theory to explain the claimed effect.  I asked the investor "why would you invest in this research when it is obviously taken from Searl, and neither the Russian team nor Searl can give an explanation about why what they're doing ought to work?"   He answered "they've never lied to me" but he couldn't answer how he knew the entire research program wasn't one big lie!

It's true that given the proper motivation, like money, many people will just believe what they want to believe.  Searl, MAK, Pod, all looks like garbage to me.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/10/2009 04:39 PM
Mastering space travel, meaning bringing in the same sorts of benefits we see in air travel, is right now a pipe dream.  So long as we have rockets and nothing else, we do not have mastery.  For mastery of space travel, we need at the least a "1 gee solution" meaning, spacecraft that can accelerate constantly in their travels.  If we had a 1 gee solution spacecraft, we could be on the Moon in 4-5 hours, on Mars in 2-5 days, at the asteroids in 6 days, Jupiter in 7 and Saturn in 9 days.  Without warping spacetime, a 1 gee solution would open up space travel to a new age and make it affordable for the average Joe. 

If you had said 100 years ago that for the equivalent of what a 16 year old can make in 3 days labor, or a doctor or lawyer can make in an hour, that one could buy a ticket and fly across the continent in 4 hours; people would have thought you were crazy.  But for space travel to ever be for the common man or woman, we need just this same sort of crazy solution.

Talking about Advanced Concepts is great fun but when it distracts us from more appropriate goals, it can do us harm.  We ought to be thinking on the 1 gee solution.  Thinking about colonizing other worlds without such a solution is an exercise in delusion, comparable to considering colonizing the Americans from Europe with a row boat.  Yes, with a really great row boat you can cross the Atlantic but you can never make it so huge numbers of others can as well.  Row boats just can't do what is needed and for colonization and neither can rockets.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/13/2009 06:06 AM
I wonder what progress has been made with the test rigs? Is it all just electromagnetic interference or are we looking at real thrust? Even if this only ever gives us 0.01g that still gives us the solar system and possibly the stars.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/13/2009 04:26 PM
The latest on the rotator, which is not a thruster but only gives a way to observe M-E; is that the instrumentation amp got smoked week before last and is under repair and upgrade.  I would not expect new rotator results in the next week.  The work is also going forward on the UFG construction and on some filters, matching systems, etc.  We're hoping to see some thrust measurements come from Fullerton before Dr. Woodward goes on extended vacation in mid May.  I'll keep the forum posted as to any reportable results.  However, it is fair to generalize that none of the results reported from Woodward's lab could have been E or M coupling, ion wind or thermal.  The controls are all appropriate to demonstrate this.  The issue is not the controls or protocols used.  The issue is we just need to see more thrust. (More than 10 uN we hope.  Perhaps in the 100's of uN.)  Hoping for that in the first two weeks of May.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/14/2009 04:57 AM
The latest on the rotator, which is not a thruster but only gives a way to observe M-E; is that the instrumentation amp got smoked week before last and is under repair and upgrade.  I would not expect new rotator results in the next week.  The work is also going forward on the UFG construction and on some filters, matching systems, etc.  We're hoping to see some thrust measurements come from Fullerton before Dr. Woodward goes on extended vacation in mid May.  I'll keep the forum posted as to any reportable results.  However, it is fair to generalize that none of the results reported from Woodward's lab could have been E or M coupling, ion wind or thermal.  The controls are all appropriate to demonstrate this.  The issue is not the controls or protocols used.  The issue is we just need to see more thrust. (More than 10 uN we hope.  Perhaps in the 100's of uN.)  Hoping for that in the first two weeks of May.


Lampy & G/I Thruster:

Dr. Woodward's rotary experiment has already nailed down the existence of a mass fluctuation like signal that can be used to generate a unidirectional force, as demonstrated by the data plots I previously posted on this web site.  And his 2002 IIT experimental results clearly demonstrated a 1.2% weight loss in a 125 gram test article, which he believes and I concur represent the first clear demonstration of the Mach-Effect's wormhole term as is shown in the attached slide.

As to the maximum magnitude of the demonstrated G/I based thruster experiments, Dr. Woodward's Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) tests never produced more than 10 micro-Newtons running at a drive frequency of ~50 kHz.  And several tests at ~400 kHz and 2.0 MHz by three others experimenters provided null results due to the lack of bulk acceleration in those designs.  However, my MLT-2004 running at 2.2 MHz, and Jim's and my Mach-2MHz running at 2.15 MHz and 3.80 MHz, which did allow for bulk acceleration of the MLT caps demonstrated thrust levels of up to 0.5 gram force or ~5.0 milli-Newtons back in the 2004 to 2006 time frame.  These high frequency MLT test runs though were not performed in a vacuum, soft or hard, so some doubt about their validity still remains, but since the peak voltages in both test series never went over 200 V-peak, the likelihood of ion wind artifacts at these thrust levels is next to nil.  Especailly considering that the Mach-2MHz test article was contained in a steel Faraday shield.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 04/14/2009 11:12 AM
What would it take to start generating much more force, just scaling ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/14/2009 11:45 AM
The techniques for scaling thrust for the MLT and UFG are different.  The UFG for instance is fairly locked into its 40 kHz or so running frequency because the stacks used generally will not resonate at much higher frequency and thrust scales to the cube of frequency.  So one way to generate more thrust with a UFG would be to use a shorter stack that operates at higher frequency.  Even though you'd have half the ceramic and half the displacement and bulk acceleration, you could have 4X the thrust.  That's what we'd like to see and I believe Jim has built a pair of shorter UFG stacks perhaps for this sort of investigation.  Realize however that in most of these tests, it is the power equipment that is the real bear--impedance matching the power system--and these systems are all frequency locked.  Jim doesn't have a $30K broadband impedance matcher (although he sure could use one and they're available.)  It is most often these very practical electrical engineering matters that stand in the way of immediate progress.  That's just what happens when you're working without funding.  With even small, sub-million dollar funding the work would certainly be progressing far faster.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/14/2009 03:34 PM
The techniques for scaling thrust for the MLT and UFG are different.  The UFG for instance is fairly locked into its 40 kHz or so running frequency because the stacks used generally will not resonate at much higher frequency and thrust scales to the cube of frequency.  So one way to generate more thrust with a UFG would be to use a shorter stack that operates at higher frequency.  Even though you'd have half the ceramic and half the displacement and bulk acceleration, you could have 4X the thrust.  That's what we'd like to see and I believe Jim has built a pair of shorter UFG stacks perhaps for this sort of investigation.  Realize however that in most of these tests, it is the power equipment that is the real bear--impedance matching the power system--and these systems are all frequency locked.  Jim doesn't have a $30K broadband impedance matcher (although he sure could use one and they're available.)  It is most often these very practical electrical engineering matters that stand in the way of immediate progress.  That's just what happens when you're working without funding.  With even small, sub-million dollar funding the work would certainly be progressing far faster.

Folks:

I have a correction to my previous post from yesterday where I said that the MLT-2004 & Mach-2MHz test article's input voltages didn't exceed 200V-peak.  That was incorrect for the MLT-2004, which had a peak voltage of ~600V-peak with a maximum generated thrust of ~0.46 gram-force per the attached slides.

I also need to note that the bulk acceleration requirement in the MLT-2004 was met by applying a thick potting like coating of silicone RTV around the cap-ring assembly and letting it cure before fiberglass taping and winding the #18 AWG toroidal B-field coil around the cap-ring.  This buffer layer allowed the cap-ring to vibrated up and down along the Z-axis relative to the fixed B-field coil with the applied vxB Lorentz force, thus generating the required cap-ring bulk acceleration needed to express the M-E.  For the Mach-2MHz MLT, the bulk acceleration requirement was met by mounting the entire cap-ring and coil assembly on a semi-flexible Plexiglas “Dog-Bone” mounting arm that allowed it to vibrate up and down with the applied vxB Lorentz force.  Considering the frequency of these vibrations which are on the order of several MHz for either of these cases, and the small magnitude of the vxB forces generated running at these operating points, the magnitude of these cap-ring deflections were very small, being on the order of several microns, but apparently they were large enough to get the job done.

As to how to scale these G/I effects up into the Newton range and beyond, that will be a matter of following the rules set forth in the third attached slide, but also taking into account the newly appreciated need for large (tens to thousands of gees) simultaneously applied bulk accelerations that are phased locked to the rest of the system.  We also need to find or develop high-k dielectrics that don't suffer from fatigue issues that currently limits the lifetime of these devices to just tens of minutes of operation without thermal annealing.  In addition, when dealing with MLTs, if we could custom design a ceramic or single crystal dielectric material with a magnetic permeability greater than 10 that simultaneously provides a permittivity of 1,000 or greater with the low dissipation factor (DF) of Teflon (0.0002), we could generate very large MLT generated forces as shown in my last attached slide. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 04/14/2009 03:43 PM
As to how to scale these G/I effects up into the Newton range and beyond

As I see it, you do not need to scale such effects to 1 Newton. Your biggest worry is to get however small, but real non-zero effects independently verified and accepted by other physicists.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/14/2009 04:22 PM
As to how to scale these G/I effects up into the Newton range and beyond

As I see it, you do not need to scale such effects to 1 Newton. Your biggest worry is to get however small, but real non-zero effects independently verified and accepted by other physicists.

As a scientist that is the appropriate course of action, and that topic was previously addressed with my previous submittals of Dr. Woodward's ongoing rotary Mach-Effect (M-E) based mass fluctuation experimental results that strongly supports his conjecture that mass fluctuation like effects exist, and that they may be engineered into viable propulsion technology.  And yes, it would be prudent for multiple independent researchers to replicate the rotary proof of principle tests and do the same thing for the follow up MLT and UFG thrust producing devices.  However, just as in the “cold fusion” fiasco, unless the independent experimenters follow the published M-E experimental cookbook precisely, their experimental results and conclusions from same may vary greatly.

BTW, the foregoing comments assume the core M-E participants currently understand ALL the important controlling parameters that govern the functioning of these M-E based devices, which the new bulk acceleration requirement has shown us is not the case at the moment.   In other words, this G/I science building is large and our lighting candles are currently very small, but we can at least leave experimental breadcrumbs for others to follow...

Now, as an electrical engineer which is my first profession, I want to start building NOW, bigger and better M-E devices that will ultimately allow us to build the first WarpStar-1 G/I powered vehicle per my STAIF-2007 paper.  And since this NASASpaceflight.com forum is more attuned to the later engineering venue, it deserves as much time as the former topic IMO. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 04/14/2009 04:47 PM
As to how to scale these G/I effects up into the Newton range and beyond

As I see it, you do not need to scale such effects to 1 Newton. Your biggest worry is to get however small, but real non-zero effects independently verified and accepted by other physicists.

As a scientist that is the appropriate course of action, and that topic was previously addressed with my previous submittals of Dr. Woodward's ongoing rotary Mach-Effect (M-E) based mass fluctuation experimental results that strongly supports his conjecture that mass fluctuation like effects exist, and that they may be engineered into viable propulsion technology.  And yes, it would be prudent for multiple independent researchers to replicate the rotary proof of principle tests and do the same thing for the follow up MLT and UFG thrust producing devices.  However, just as in the “cold fusion” fiasco, unless the independent experimenters follow the published M-E experimental cookbook precisely, their experimental results and conclusions from same may vary greatly.
...
Now, as an electrical engineer which is my first profession, I want to start building NOW, bigger and better M-E devices that will ultimately allow us to build the first WarpStar-1 G/I powered vehicle per my STAIF-2007 paper.  And since this NASASpaceflight.com forum is more attuned to the later engineering venue, it deserves as much time as the former topic IMO.

Aren't you trying to skip a dozen steps in the ladder at once? If/when the effect is confirmed and accepted as real, there will be far more funding to continue the research, to understand the effect better, to test it in space, to build ships...

But now, people are not even convinced there is _any_ substance to these claims.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/14/2009 06:43 PM
I don't think it's fair to say Paul wants to skip steps.  He's just admitting he wants to build spaceships.  :-)  But just as he's said, the thing is to get others interested in independent replications.  To date, those who have done replications like ORNL did not follow the proper construction nor consult properly with Jim Woodward.  If they had, we would have had very different results.  Those researchers also did not understand the theory so it is little surprise they did not accommodate bulk acceleration in their design.  Conversely, Paul did consult with Jim and his thruster appears to have worked just fine.

The interesting thing to me about the upcoming UFG study is that hopefully we'll see one on the ARC Lite balance, in vacuum.  That could easily provide evidence compelling enough to land a grant and see others do replication work.  Most labs will not just pick up an unpaid project.  If you want to see careful replications done, generally you have to have money to do them.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/14/2009 07:14 PM
Aren't you trying to skip a dozen steps in the ladder at once? If/when the effect is confirmed and accepted as real, there will be far more funding to continue the research, to understand the effect better, to test it in space, to build ships...

But now, people are not even convinced there is _any_ substance to these claims.
[/quote]


GoSpaceX:

“Aren't you trying to skip a dozen steps in the ladder at once?”

What, you don’t like a carrot to chase?  After all that is the reason that I wrote my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper to begin with, i.e., to show the aerospace design community that there may be a much better way to skin the space fairing cat than just using rockets.  However, it appears that most of the aerospace community wants a sure thing before they are willing to expend ANY effort of their own needed to understand the issues at hand and to further the cause with their own efforts.

“But now, people are not even convinced there is _any_ substance to these claims.”

I give you independent derived data, but you just want more.  So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?  Do the interested parties have to mature the technology on their own to the point of being able to levitating the test article in front of all of you before you are willing to even consider its use let alone how its done?   It appears that is exactly what you are asking for.  It reminds me of the fable about the little red hen and the loaf of bread she baked after much travail…
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/14/2009 11:17 PM


GoSpaceX:

“Aren't you trying to skip a dozen steps in the ladder at once?”

What, you don’t like a carrot to chase?  After all that is the reason that I wrote my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper to begin with, i.e., to show the aerospace design community that there may be a much better way to skin the space fairing cat than just using rockets.  However, it appears that most of the aerospace community wants a sure thing before they are willing to expend ANY effort of their own needed to understand the issues at hand and to further the cause with their own efforts.

“But now, people are not even convinced there is _any_ substance to these claims.”

I give you independent derived data, but you just want more.  So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?  Do the interested parties have to mature the technology on their own to the point of being able to levitating the test article in front of all of you before you are willing to even consider its use let alone how its done?   It appears that is exactly what you are asking for.  It reminds me of the fable about the little red hen and the loaf of bread she baked after much travail…


This forum isn't the place for publishing a paper or going through peer review. Write up a paper on the experiments, submit it to the AIAA for publication. Show both Jim and Paul's independent experiments agreed with each other, and how ORNL screwed up that prevented them from replicating.

Once thats done, write up some grant requests to fund more research, submit to the DoE, NASA, USAF, DARPA. Make sure the grant requests show info about chinese, russian, indian, or european efforts in this area, particularly with the USAF and DARPA grant requests.

Beyond that, try Bigelow for funding. His focus on ET and UFOs as the basis for his aerospace project means he's going to want some truly useful spacecraft propulsion, and he's got enough money that he doesn't have to care what people think about his motives. If you want to build spaceships, know your technology works, and dont care about near term approbium of the science community (once you prove it publicly the herd will all come around), thats the best way to go.

Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money, or curmudgeons whose livelihoods are threatened by disruptive technologies.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/15/2009 01:33 AM
"Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money, or curmudgeons whose livelihoods are threatened by disruptive technologies."

I have to agree.  Paul is just sharing his frustration that he's been at this for so long and we're not seeing the people with the purses respond, despite what seems unequivocal evidence on the rotator of Mach-Effects.

But personally, I think the best course of action is not to look for funding just yet.  I think once more that Jim Woodward has got it right.  Generate enough thrust under the proper conditions, meaning with the proper controls; such that you have a "demonstrator" then I think the world will be knocking on your door.

"Once thats done, write up some grant requests to fund more research, submit to the DoE, NASA, USAF, DARPA. Make sure the grant requests show info about chinese, russian, indian, or european efforts in this area, particularly with the USAF and DARPA grant requests."

I want to agree but here's the trouble: Jim is really doing pure research.  Paul is an engineer who wants to build spaceships! but Jim is a physicist who wants to learn about how to handle Mach-Effects. 

When one looks back over the work this last decade; there have been many discoveries and in particular, Jim is always altering his research in light of lessons learned.  If one has a grant, one is locked into a specific course of action.  You commit to a specific program and like it or not, even when you learn better, you are obliged to continue on toward the goals of the grant.  So to be plain about this, Jim is better off without a grant until he's come to a point where he is really ready to be doing R&D as opposed to pure research.

We already know many of the steps necessary to build better thrusters.  We know there are better materials we can use, higher frequencies, better COTS power equipment, different geometries, larger test articles. These are all R&D issues that have to do with prototyping and when we get to that point, we have lots of information about where to head.  First however, we need a demonstrator.

BTW, anyone here who does regular technology searches, you'll want to avoid the latest garbage from Pravda about a propellantless thruster running on a satellite.  Its a hook intended to plant a Trojan in your computer so beware what pages you open in that regard.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/15/2009 01:37 AM
Virgin too, perhaps. They might at least provide a free zero-gee test of the equipment. But at this stage I guess Star-Drive and co. need to iron out the wrinkles and have a rigorous testing methodology. One of the things that let the air out of cold fusion's tires was the fact that they seem to need neutron background radiation to work, shielding them made the experiments dud out. So every possible testing variable has to be formalised, I guess. Who knows if there is some environmental variable being overlooked here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 04/15/2009 01:41 AM
Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money,

The words are in the wrong order.  It should be:

Internet forums and email lists are places that attract kooks, who have no pull and no money, trying to get support for supposed breakthrough technologies.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/15/2009 01:47 AM
"Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money, or curmudgeons whose livelihoods are threatened by disruptive technologies."

I have to agree.  Paul is just sharing his frustration that he's been at this for so long and we're not seeing the people with the purses respond, despite what seems unequivocal evidence on the rotator of Mach-Effects.

But personally, I think the best course of action is not to look for funding just yet.  I think once more that Jim Woodward has got it right.  Generate enough thrust under the proper conditions, meaning with the proper controls; such that you have a "demonstrator" then I think the world will be knocking on your door.

BTW, anyone here who does regular technology searches, you'll want to avoid the latest garbage from Pravda about a propellantless thruster running on a satellite.  Its a hook intended to plant a Trojan in your computer so beware what pages you open in that regard.

There are people who will listen. You need to have someone on the board of directors on your side, a champion really. The CEO is best.

As for grassroots internet stuff, this technology requires a great deal of skill to get any detectable results. Getting other people in the electrical engineering field interested is key. I don't have the chops to wire something like this up but I do know someone who does.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/15/2009 02:02 AM
Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money,

The words are in the wrong order.  It should be:

Internet forums and email lists are places that attract kooks, who have no pull and no money, trying to get support for supposed breakthrough technologies.

And if it is an actual breakthrough technology? Then kick it as hard as possible and see if it'll break.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/15/2009 02:15 AM
Heh!  Look, let me just remind, there have been plenty of folks who have offered to provide finacial support for Woodward's work.  I originally connected with the group because I was contracted to look for technologies worthy of investment.  Jim routinely turns down offers for financial support.  That does make him stand out in the crowd and I think, worth watching if you have the patience.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/15/2009 02:57 AM
Heh!  Look, let me just remind, there have been plenty of folks who have offered to provide finacial support for Woodward's work.  I originally connected with the group because I was contracted to look for technologies worthy of investment.  Jim routinely turns down offers for financial support.  That does make him stand out in the crowd and I think, worth watching if you have the patience.

Thanks for stating that.

Oh btw I just found and listend to Prof Woodward's recent appearance on The Space Show podcast:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1114
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/15/2009 03:09 AM
Virgin too, perhaps. They might at least provide a free zero-gee test of the equipment. But at this stage I guess Star-Drive and co. need to iron out the wrinkles and have a rigorous testing methodology. One of the things that let the air out of cold fusion's tires was the fact that they seem to need neutron background radiation to work, shielding them made the experiments dud out. So every possible testing variable has to be formalised, I guess. Who knows if there is some environmental variable being overlooked here.

Back when every university and their uncle was trying to replicate the original  CF experiments, one thing I noticed was that virtually nobody was trying to replicate the experiment EXACTLY. Each was trying different methods and materials in hopes of finding an alternative method they could patent themselves. I was in Seattle at the time and I noticed that the UW team was using iron on one of their electrodes, didnt see any neutrons, so they pronounced Pons and Fleischman frauds.

Theres been a lot more experiments since then and some have seen something, others have not and there remains a lot of contention and no unit that produces net power. CF hasn't even reached the point that the Farnsworth Fusor was at 40 years ago.

The Mach Effect, however, seems rather replicable IF it is done properly and relatively inexpensive compared even to the budget the Polywell folks have operated on.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Patchouli on 04/15/2009 03:25 AM
It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.
Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/15/2009 03:58 AM

It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.
Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit.

Patchouli:

You didn't read or at least understand my scaling slide that I appended earlier.  Let me summarize it here again for you.  There are no currently known theoretical limits on the thrust generation capability of a gravinertial (G/I) field drive.  The only limits on the maximum thrust production for a given device are related to the design implementation details of the G/I thruster in question, i.e., how much power it can handle before it burns out and/or flys apart, just like you can build small rockets or large rockets.  G/I based thrusters with million pound thrusts or larger are conceivable and probably buildable once the G/I sciences are fully understood.  When creating a new science and technology, we take baby steps before we walk, and we have to walk before we run, but IMO we have at least taken the first few steps in this new journey.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/15/2009 04:05 AM
"It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.  Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit."

Yes and no.

Woodward's theory distinguishes between two different terms: the "impulse term" derived from fluctuating mass as it oscillates back and forth when its mass is fluctuated below 100%, and the "wormhole term" that comes into play only when one fluctuates the mass beyond 100%.  In all of Woodward's experiments, he has avoided "wormhole territory" where dm>m obtains so he is seeing the expected smaller thrusts.  In Paul March's experiments, he has violated the wormhole boundary meaning, he was running at higher frequency and seeming to obtain a mass fluctuation > 100%.  That means Paul has a contribution from the wormhole term that Jim is not yet looking for--the effects of negative mass and the contribution of negative inertia.

Just to recap, Jim has been using very careful controls: running in vacuum, running on the ARC Lite, using Mu metal etc. to show he is not getting E or M coupling, ion wind or thermal artifacts.  Paul ran his 2002 test items way past the wormhole boundary--way past dm=m so one should expect much larger thrusts.  But again, Paul was not set up with sufficient vacuum to make strong claims about what he saw.

So yes--if one never violates the wormhole boundary, then the thrusts and thrust efficiency will be relatively small--though still useful for things like satellite station keeping sans propellant.  If on the other hand we one day we find that operation in wormhole territory works, then we can have these very high thrust efficiency designs like the 1 N/W thrusters Paul presumed in the WarpStar 1 design.

So truly, "yes and no."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/15/2009 02:54 PM
"It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.  Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit."

Yes and no.

Woodward's theory distinguishes between two different terms: the "impulse term" derived from fluctuating mass as it oscillates back and forth when its mass is fluctuated below 100%, and the "wormhole term" that comes into play only when one fluctuates the mass beyond 100%.  In all of Woodward's experiments, he has avoided "wormhole territory" where dm>m obtains so he is seeing the expected smaller thrusts.  In Paul March's experiments, he has violated the wormhole boundary meaning, he was running at higher frequency and seeming to obtain a mass fluctuation > 100%.  That means Paul has a contribution from the wormhole term that Jim is not yet looking for--the effects of negative mass and the contribution of negative inertia.

Just to recap, Jim has been using very careful controls: running in vacuum, running on the ARC Lite, using Mu metal etc. to show he is not getting E or M coupling, ion wind or thermal artifacts.  Paul ran his 2002 test items way past the wormhole boundary--way past dm=m so one should expect much larger thrusts.  But again, Paul was not set up with sufficient vacuum to make strong claims about what he saw.

So yes--if one never violates the wormhole boundary, then the thrusts and thrust efficiency will be relatively small--though still useful for things like satellite station keeping sans propellant.  If on the other hand we one day we find that operation in wormhole territory works, then we can have these very high thrust efficiency designs like the 1 N/W thrusters Paul presumed in the WarpStar 1 design.

So truly, "yes and no."

G/I Thruster:

Even if we restrict ourselves to delta mass ratios (dm/m) of less than one, large thrusts values can still be obtained.  You just have to use more dielectric mass and stronger crossed B-fields to get there.  In other words, not going into Mach-Effect (M-E) wormhole-term territory simply means that the thrust to weight ratios for the G/I thrusters will be lower than if we can use the dm/m>1.0 operating mode.  And since I've already demonstrated that this can be accomplished anyway, albeit not in a vacuum, then we can be pretty sure that the dm/m>1.0 operational mode will be available to us engineers in the end analysis.  And that's a good thing to, for we really need the M-E wormhole-term to take the next step past the impulse drive plateau.  Hint, think about the Alcubierre drive…
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/15/2009 07:55 PM
"The Mach Effect, however, seems rather replicable IF it is done properly and relatively inexpensive compared even to the budget the Polywell folks have operated on."

The rotator experiment that shows M-E rather than thrust is very inexpensive to do.  Any normal lab that would consider this sort of work probably has most of what they need, like scopes, readily available.  The power system takes some time to build but there is no need for vacuum, etc. so it's a cheap experiment.

Thrusters are a very different story.  For them you need a thrust balance and hard vacuum in addition to the power system.  Still, lab's like George Hathaway's and EarthTech could pretty easily do a replication.  But again, labs like that don't do replications unless they are paid.  That is after all how they earn a living.

In my experience, it is completely true that replicators seldom follow instruction and almost NEVER replicate an experiment exactly.  It's because of this that Jim Woodward is willing to build a rotator for anyone who has the skills and desire to use it--because he knows then he can expect the same results.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/17/2009 04:53 PM
In building one of these things, how do you know that they have given you enough information to build a working model?  Naturally, they're trying to patent a device, so I'm missing something here.  Are you supposed to figure out the missing pieces to the equations or mechanism yourself?

Secondly, what is the power source of this drive?  A small nuclear plant?  Where's the energy coming from?  It's one thing to build a device which can levitate itself off the lab bench while attached to a thick cable, and another to build a guidable, non-attached unit.

And am I correct in understanding that the device has not yet actually levitated any material, such as a thin sheet of gold, or something?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/17/2009 06:15 PM
Anyone interested in doing this work is invited to do so.  The rotator is not patented since it is a proof of concept demonstrator with no practical value other than to demonstrate the science is correct.  The thrusters all have patents either granted or pending so they are protected.

I know that people get enough info to build these devices because I have built them myself.  I'm not an engineer or physicist so it would be worthless for me to try to do these experiments on my own.  For thrusters you need a real lab with hard vacuum, etc. (although I do have a vacuum oven but that's another story.)  However, I can save Jim time and effort by building the thrusters for him which I have done.  I built about a dozen MLT's over a year ago and Jim ran them.  Jim is doing his own builds on the UFG at present because these are more difficult to assemble than the MLT's were and I'm not set up to do that kind of assembly, despite 20+ years shop experience.

None of the thrusters levitate.  We often joke about how the people with the purses will need to have a test item floated into their offices before they listen.  When running in the 40 kHz range Jim uses a 2kW  Carvin audio amp that has a flat response to 70 kHz.  He generally puts a couple hundred watts on a test item.  I own a cheap NADY amp that's capable of putting out 1kW and cost me $75 so these systems are very cheap.  It's the impedance matching that is expensive and difficult.  However, these power systems are not difficult to miniaturize.  The higher the frequency one runs at, the smaller a switching inverter can be used and A123 makes batteries the size of a wine cork capable of putting out over 400 watts for a short period of time.  So the power is there to go self contained and this has been done in the past with a power system that was half the size of a Coke can.  Before we turn our attention to this sort of thing in earnest, we have to verify the science.  Then we can start talking miniaturizing power systems, prototyping, development, etc. That is all TRL 7+ work.

I'm not sure if that answers your question but let me be very plain: these thrusters do not levitate other objects.  They produce thrust so the issue of gold leaf is a non issue.  This is not "anti-gravity" research.  This is gravinertial research for generating propellantless thrust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 04/17/2009 08:57 PM
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 04/17/2009 09:24 PM
"Lifters" use air as reaction mass, and need energy for the ionization and acceleration of the air. I wouldn't class it as propellantless since you need both an energy source and reaction mass. It's more like a propeller aircraft.

Tethers can use electrodynamics in low Earth orbit to respin after tossing a payload, and can produce the power for that from solar cells so it could be propellantless propulsion I guess that could perhaps work indefinitely since the momentum exchange is with the mass of Earth.

Then there are the solar sails, electrodynamic and electrostatic sails, all propellantless propulsion if thought of as that way that use the sun's light or the solar wind (which is an ion stream).

With a tether, you can use electric power to raise the orbit, or if you lower the orbit, you can generate electrical power.

It is very viable to use a tether on a station to maintain orbit without propellant.  You would need to up the size of the solar arrays to generate the energy required.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/17/2009 09:24 PM
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.

Firstly, please stop asserting that M-E gets 'around' Newtons third law any more than a game of tug-of-war does. The M-E reacts against the rest of the universe, period. While I understand thats a bit big of a concept for some folks, honestly though, it shouldn't be for anybody who has moved beyond the idea that anything outside our solar system is just little light bulbs on a big sphere.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 04/17/2009 09:36 PM
Quote
hmh33 - 13/5/2008  6:30 AM

Quote
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.

EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are clueless.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/17/2009 09:43 PM
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.

We're in complete accord which is why I have mentioned that this work is open for anyone to participate in.  We do need to see independent verifications.  However, we also need to recognize the difference between proving the science (which requires replications and participation of the larger science community) and proving the technology (which requires only adherence to things described in the TRL level descriptions.)  It's quite common to have the second without the first and it's a fair bet that most classified technology is this way.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/17/2009 09:50 PM
Quote
hmh33 - 13/5/2008  6:30 AM

Quote
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.

EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are incorrect.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.

I have never met anyone who believes this scheme as explained doesn't violate conservation.  However, it's also true that Sonny White claims his ZPF theory explains how such a thing could generate thrust.  So it's possible, if Dr. White's physics is sound (which I can't say--I'm not a ZPFer), that Shawyer literally stumbled upon a thruster design that works and he really doesn't understand why it works!

But I'm not saying it works.  If it did would he have lost his Brit gov funding?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/18/2009 01:44 PM
"Anyone interested in doing this work is invited to do so."  Certainly, but that's also like saying, "anyone who wants to build a hydrogen fueled automobile is free to do so."  Easy to say and fairly hard to do.

Anyhow, about the gold leaf. you can levitate a ping pong ball in the air from the other end of a vacuum cleaner.  In order to propel something, there has to be a directional force somewhere.  If we're using the universe to push against that gold leaf, then so be it.

Point is, if this is going to be a rocket, something needs to be pushed.  Yeah, levitating itself around the lab would be a very impressive display, sure to get investor dollars.  But I think an easier display is to demonstrate lifting something against the pull of Earth's gravity.

Am I correct that the device doesn't have enough thrust to escape Earth's gravity?  But it has some thrust.  Maybe not levitate a gold leaf, but push against a balance beam, then.  Something that the guy with money can see.

I also don't understand why he doesn't seek funding.  Either the science hasn't yet been proved, or he's trying to get the big bucks associated with the patent.  I have argued for altruism on this site, and have been ridiculed.  I would have a hard time believing that his is an altruistic exercise.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 04/18/2009 02:36 PM
Quote
Quote
EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are incorrect.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.

I took me a while to understand how it works. There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes. For the em-drive it is this that creates the force imbalance on the end walls of the cavity. In terms of momentum, if there are two equal masses and the total momentum p=p1-p2 then p is non zero when the velocities of the particle colliding at each end of the waveguide differ. The slope of the walls of the cavity ensure the collisions with the walls along the length result in a nonlinear force ie: the differing group velocities along the length of the sloping cavity ensure the particles don't just bounce around inside the cavity canceling each others forces totally out. One uses the law of relativistic velocity addition to see that there is forward motion when the thruster is viewed by an outside observer (thus an open system).
To illustrate:
If one fires two opposing canons within a closed box the impact of the canonballs against the walls will cancel out to result in zero motion. If either the velocity or the mass of one of the balls changes en-route to the wall then the impacts will not cancel out and there will be motion. The trick then is to deal with the lost mass or velocity. It has to have gone somewhere.
From the point of view of momentum; The em-drive looks at the change in velocity whereas the woodward drive looks at the change in mass. The both deal with the imbalance in different ways. EM-drive uses the properties of waveguides and relativity whereas woodward's drive uses machian mass fluctuations and a rectifier.
When one accounts for the energy absorbed into the system to create the motion then one retains conversation of energy. Same for momentum.

So I think I understand. Took me a while but I think I'm there. And it is basic physics! It USES newton laws. It just needed a different perspective.



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/18/2009 04:42 PM
"There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes."

Very interesting.  Could you explain a little more for us how this change in group velocity can explain a change in momentum without violating conservation?  I think this is the sticky point people seem to disagree with Shawyer on.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/18/2009 05:23 PM
"Anyone interested in doing this work is invited to do so."  Certainly, but that's also like saying, "anyone who wants to build a hydrogen fueled automobile is free to do so."  Easy to say and fairly hard to do.

Anyhow, about the gold leaf. you can levitate a ping pong ball in the air from the other end of a vacuum cleaner.  In order to propel something, there has to be a directional force somewhere.  If we're using the universe to push against that gold leaf, then so be it.

Point is, if this is going to be a rocket, something needs to be pushed.  Yeah, levitating itself around the lab would be a very impressive display, sure to get investor dollars.  But I think an easier display is to demonstrate lifting something against the pull of Earth's gravity.

Am I correct that the device doesn't have enough thrust to escape Earth's gravity?  But it has some thrust.  Maybe not levitate a gold leaf, but push against a balance beam, then.  Something that the guy with money can see.

I also don't understand why he doesn't seek funding.  Either the science hasn't yet been proved, or he's trying to get the big bucks associated with the patent.  I have argued for altruism on this site, and have been ridiculed.  I would have a hard time believing that his is an altruistic exercise.

The MLT thrusters produce thrust on the order of a few uN, the older UFG design a few hundred uN.  Paul March's MLT developed much more thrust because it was run in wormhole territory but as I've mentioned, Paul was unable to provide the proper protocols and controls for us to make strong claims about what he found.  In all these instances, the thrusters produce less force than their own weight so they will not levitate.  They are measured on the ARC Lite thrust balance and if what you want is to see something move on the balance, expect that in the next few weeks when Jim resumes his thruster studies.

And yes, it is certainly Jim's integrity that moves him to refrain from looking for cash like most others in this business.  Perhaps this is the natural consequence that he's in his late 70's with a couple different types of terminal cancer so he has a great sense of his own mortality.  In any case, he knows he can't take it with him so money is not his goal.  Proving the science and leaving a lasting legacy are more to his tastes, IMHO.

For the rest of us who want to build spaceships, Jim's patience in this area can cause us some real stress.  :-)

Again, anyone who wants to be involved in this research can make their own place.  All the relevant physics and engineering is posted.  There is a team of highly skilled engineers surrounding Jim who are happy to help others.  What's required are: the skills necessary to succeed (I'm a philosopher, it would be silly for me to think I could run one of these experiments), a desire to learn and the free time.  Time is one of those things that is on a premium since Jim is the only one involved who is working essentially full time.  Anyone wants on the mailing list, that's the best place to start to learn about the work.  Just write me a couple sentences describing your background and skills and I'll forward your address to Jim.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/18/2009 06:35 PM
Quote
Quote

EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are incorrect.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.

I took me a while to understand how it works. There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes. For the em-drive it is this that creates the force imbalance on the end walls of the cavity. In terms of momentum, if there are two equal masses and the total momentum p=p1-p2 then p is non zero when the velocities of the particle colliding at each end of the waveguide differ. The slope of the walls of the cavity ensure the collisions with the walls along the length result in a nonlinear force ie: the differing group velocities along the length of the sloping cavity ensure the particles don't just bounce around inside the cavity canceling each others forces totally out. One uses the law of relativistic velocity addition to see that there is forward motion when the thruster is viewed by an outside observer (thus an open system).

To illustrate:

If one fires two opposing canons within a closed box the impact of the canonballs against the walls will cancel out to result in zero motion. If either the velocity or the mass of one of the balls changes en-route to the wall then the impacts will not cancel out and there will be motion. The trick then is to deal with the lost mass or velocity. It has to have gone somewhere.

From the point of view of momentum; The em-drive looks at the change in velocity whereas the woodward drive looks at the change in mass. The both deal with the imbalance in different ways. EM-drive uses the properties of waveguides and relativity whereas woodward's drive uses machian mass fluctuations and a rectifier.

When one accounts for the energy absorbed into the system to create the motion then one retains conversation of energy. Same for momentum.

So I think I understand. Took me a while but I think I'm there. And it is basic physics! It USES newton laws. It just needed a different perspective.


Nathan:

A major problem with Shawyer’s waveguide explanation is that his theoretical proof does not provide an explanation for the magnitude of the reaction forces reported.  Photon rockets of any stripe with only several hundred watts of input power can't generate thrusts measured in milli-Newtons.  Instead they can only produce pico to nano-Newtons of thrust from their local power supplies, unless they are also inadvertently tapping into a higher dimensional energy manifold as do Woodward's devices with the cosmologically derived gravinertial field. 

However, Shawyer first has to replicate his posted video experiment in a hard vacuum (<1x10-6 Torr) and get the same results, thus precluding possible ion wind or cooling fan generated thrusts before we worry too much about his proposed theoretical approach.  If he does get the same reported thrust in a vacuum though, then my bet is still on Sonny White's QVF explanation being more accurate than Shawyer’s.

BTW, as noted by GI-Thruster, I need to find the time and resources to replicate my Mach-2MHz experiment and/or exercise my new MLT-2009 test article in a hard vacuum, before we can take its results to be anything more than strongly suggestive that M-E based MLTs work as advertised.  Alas, that next step for me has proven problematic so far...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/18/2009 06:54 PM
"Anyone interested in doing this work is invited to do so."  Certainly, but that's also like saying, "anyone who wants to build a hydrogen fueled automobile is free to do so."  Easy to say and fairly hard to do.

Anyhow, about the gold leaf. you can levitate a ping pong ball in the air from the other end of a vacuum cleaner.  In order to propel something, there has to be a directional force somewhere.  If we're using the universe to push against that gold leaf, then so be it.

Point is, if this is going to be a rocket, something needs to be pushed.  Yeah, levitating itself around the lab would be a very impressive display, sure to get investor dollars.  But I think an easier display is to demonstrate lifting something against the pull of Earth's gravity.

Am I correct that the device doesn't have enough thrust to escape Earth's gravity?  But it has some thrust.  Maybe not levitate a gold leaf, but push against a balance beam, then.  Something that the guy with money can see.

I also don't understand why he doesn't seek funding.  Either the science hasn't yet been proved, or he's trying to get the big bucks associated with the patent.  I have argued for altruism on this site, and have been ridiculed.  I would have a hard time believing that his is an altruistic exercise.

Altruism with feeding the poor is nice and good. Altruism with technology that requires significant capital investments to fully exploit is a disservice to everyone. Without an ability to gain a maximum return on the investment, venture capitalists are dissuaded from investing in a new technology.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/18/2009 08:52 PM
The trouble with all funding is that one is essentially locked into pursuing whatever research one commits to in order to get the funding.  One thing I've repeatedly seen over these last 3+ years is that discovery has dictated a change in direction of research on many occasions.  If Jim had taken a venture capitalist's money to pursue the MLT, he would need to be continuing that despite that he's learned the MLT does not provide adequate bulk acceleration.  Jim has learned his lessons from the MLT and returned to UFG research.  That kind of flexibility is literally "priceless".  Same is true with this last year's worth of research on the rotator.  Now we have an entire body of new evidence of M-E, of a completely different sort than what comes from a thruster.  That's a significant breakthrough.  But suppose again Jim had taken money to pursue the MLT.  Then he would not have had the freedom a year ago to change course and attack the rotator issue for an entire year.  No investor would have been happy that Jim had essentially abandoned thrust studies in order to prove out the science.  If Jim had taken money from others, he would literally not have the freedom to make these sorts of choices.

So it's not just altruism that has Jim ignoring money.  It's common sense.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 04/18/2009 11:38 PM
"There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes."

Very interesting.  Could you explain a little more for us how this change in group velocity can explain a change in momentum without violating conservation?  I think this is the sticky point people seem to disagree with Shawyer on.
I tried to in my post. Essentially the momentum gained by the system equals the momentum lost by the electromagnetic wave within the cavity.
In my example - the momentum "mysteriously" lost by one canonball (due to change in velocity in the waveguide) is converted equally into the momentum gained by the system, thus conserving momentum. Thus nothing needs to be thrown out the back of the vehicle (which is everyones sticking point).

In response to stardrives comment on the magnitude of the effect - the effect is magnified by the large number of reflections each photon experiences at the end walls. Each reflection imparts momentum (like light hitting a solar sail would). One then needs to consider the overall power of the system to obtain the magnitude reported. The system itself does limit the effect though. If the velocity of the waveguide increases in the direction of the thrust then thrust falls to zero at some limiting velocity.

If one thinks about it - we really don't understand why momentum is transfered from one body to another - we can describe it mathematically and generate equations but why does it happen at all? And how does it happen? Perhaps the em-drive is a result of this actual process. (this is arm waving of course).

(I should have pointed out that this all depends on the fact that the actual equations for the beam velocities within the cavity do not depend of the velocity of the waveguide itself. Thus the open system point of view.)
The best paper they've produced is http://www.emdrive.com/IAC-08-C4-4-7.pdf
I suggest everyone read it and work thru the equations. I have a physics degree and I cannot find a problem with the equations at all. I cannot see anything being violated and I can see a net thrust resulting.
I do agree that we need more comprehensive testing to eliminate all possibilities, including larger unseen nulling effects. They have a new thruster due to be ready for testing in August this year.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/19/2009 12:39 AM
"In my example - the momentum "mysteriously" lost by one canonball (due to change in velocity in the waveguide) is converted equally into the momentum gained by the system, thus conserving momentum."

Well, as I'm not a physicist I'll leave detailed analysis alone, but I have to say, I'm anything but convinced.  You can do the math but intuition tells me this is wrong.  If you fire one cannonball right and another left, and mysteriously drop the velocity to the right, you would have to conserve by somehow finding momentum to the right.  But instead, what you get is net force to the left.  I think that's wrong.  Sounds like someone got a sign wrong somewhere. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 04/19/2009 03:40 AM
"In my example - the momentum "mysteriously" lost by one canonball (due to change in velocity in the waveguide) is converted equally into the momentum gained by the system, thus conserving momentum."

Well, as I'm not a physicist I'll leave detailed analysis alone, but I have to say, I'm anything but convinced.  You can do the math but intuition tells me this is wrong.  If you fire one cannonball right and another left, and mysteriously drop the velocity to the right, you would have to conserve by somehow finding momentum to the right.  But instead, what you get is net force to the left.  I think that's wrong.  Sounds like someone got a sign wrong somewhere. . .

Yeah. That's what had me struggling all along. But that's the beauty of the waveguide. The wavelength or the photons remains the same but the group velocity differs along the axis of the tapered waveguide. (Hence our canonball changes velocity mid flight, without consequence since the velocity of the light is not dependant on the forward velocity of the waveguide. (Thus the open system)).
The actual answer is given in equation 10 of the paper , which shows where the relativistic addition of velocities makes all the difference. The graph shows the relationship clearly.


What we are looking at here is a non-linear solution to the newton force equation. The geometry of the waveguide forces the em wave to change its group velocity along the length of the tapered cavity, based on the diameter of the cavity.This generates the momentum difference in the first place due to the photon impacts at each end.

The total momentum is conserved since the motion of the cavity becomes the extra term needed for conservation.

p1=momentum imparted on plate one.
p2=momentum imarted on plate two.
p=resultant momentum.
if p1 and p2 are unequal and opposite, there will be a resultant momentum p.
p=p2-p1
or
p-p2+p1=0

Thus momentum is conserved.
That's as simple as I can make it.



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 04/19/2009 04:21 AM
I'll try to come up with a better illustration of the concept. It seems understandable to me but I've worked thru the equations. My intuition tells me it is correct because of this. But until one clicks ones intuition will never accept it.

Gimme a couple of days.

For those uncertain as to why the forces on each end of the waveguide differ - consider a tapered pipe with water flowing thru it. the water goes faster the smaller the pipe becomes. ie, the same mass moves thru at a higher speed in the smaller pipe than the larger one. This is analagous to the group velocity of light in a waveguide.
Faster moving water impacts a wall with higher momentum than slow moving water.
One should thus easily see that the forces on each end of the waveguide are different. That part of the illustration is easy enough. The rest is hard as it involves relativity and the concept of an open system.

Let me think on it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/19/2009 02:52 PM
Seems like small thrusts are possible.  What you need on a long interstellar flight.  Pico-Newtons aren't very much.  About the power supply: it's good that it's potentially simple.  I have an old tube Mac that probably would be too heavy to levitate itself, but I bet it could climb up a cable to the Moon.

Anyhow, the power supply so far is attached to a cable, and the demonstrated force experiments are more like a balance beam, I gather.

I like the idea of research for it's own sake, and it's true that investors frown upon an inventor changing his direction without their assent.  But I still don't get it.  Is this technology at the proof of concep phase?

Now to read IAC- 08 – C4.4.7.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/19/2009 04:15 PM
Seems like small thrusts are possible.  What you need on a long interstellar flight.  Pico-Newtons aren't very much.  About the power supply: it's good that it's potentially simple.  I have an old tube Mac that probably would be too heavy to levitate itself, but I bet it could climb up a cable to the Moon.

Anyhow, the power supply so far is attached to a cable, and the demonstrated force experiments are more like a balance beam, I gather.

I like the idea of research for it's own sake, and it's true that investors frown upon an inventor changing his direction without their assent.  But I still don't get it.  Is this technology at the proof of concep phase?

Now to read IAC- 08 – C4.4.7.

Woodward's thruster work is at the TRL 5-6.  There have been many sorts of "proof of concept."  The issue here is that science doesn't actually ever "prove" anything.  More what it does is disprove all the alternatives.  So point in fact, there is no one single standard of evidence that qualifies as 'scientific", etc.  What we have are many people from many backgrounds who each individually think one level of evidence is convincing and another compelling, etc.  So the goal is to compile as many sorts of evidence as possible.

The rotator evidence is very compelling to me since I understand there are no other proposed effects found in anti-phase to electrostriction that can explain Jim's findings.  So far as convincing the larger scientific community is concerned, there's no way to tell how physicists will respond.  In general they don't like each other.  :-)    It's very difficult to get physicists to respond to each other.  The only ways I know for sure to do this are either a) pay them to pay attention or b) publish in a peer review journal.  Jim did the latter over a decade ago with no complaints outstanding so really I think we are just going to have to wait for the scientific community to wake up.  One way of waking them up is to do replications as broadly as possible.

The issue of "how much thrust is enough thrust?" is a serious one.  You are tracking to think that Jim is not yet producing enough thrust to power human spaceflight.  However, UFG's producing 100's of uN are useful in their own right for things like propellantless satellite station keeping.  The fact these items have an effective Isp much higher than Ion, and use no propellant, could make even these pre-prototype thrusters a marketable item.  However, the real news is that these things all scale wonderfully, not just in how much thrust they produce, but in their thrust efficiency.  For instance, in the future we can look at exotic materials.  Thrust efficiency scales to the square of the dielectric constant (k) of the material used.  Jim is using sintered BaTiO3 caps in his upcoming UFG design with a k of around 5,000.  That's a very high k material.  Single crystal BaTiO3 has a k of closer to 10,000 but rather than cost $2/cc it costs $5,000/cc.  So you can see why we're not using single crystal caps.  But who knows what the future holds?  Perhaps we can find a way to use "hot opal" phase change dielectrics with a k over 100,000.  That would give us bang!  Thrust also scales to things like the cube of frequency and operating at higher frequencies is often easier and cheaper.  The size of switching inverters scale inversely proportional to their frequency so one route to miniaturization is simply to go to higher frequencies in the future. Then there are the parametric methods for enhancing thrust and a bunch of others.

Does that give a sense of the process going on?  It's not a sprint.  It's a marathon.

And yes, the Arc Lite balance is like a balance beam except that it is set up horizontally so that it will not confuse thrust with time-averaged changes in mass.  It's a very precise, world-class instrument built by Tom Mayhood complete with vacuum chamber that pulls E-6 Torr.   The ARC Lite is a large improvement over other thrust balances of its kind to be found in academia and at the Austrian Research Center because it has been enhanced with liquid metal power system contacts that generate no discernable resistance to rotation on the balance arm.  The ARC Lite is probably the best instrument of its kind in the world today.  I expect Jim will be publishing photos of the ARC Lite with a UFG on the arm in his weekly updates of UFG research starting in the next couple weeks.  If so I'll try to post a pic here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/19/2009 05:45 PM
I'll try to come up with a better illustration of the concept. It seems understandable to me but I've worked thru the equations. My intuition tells me it is correct because of this. But until one clicks ones intuition will never accept it.

Gimme a couple of days.

For those uncertain as to why the forces on each end of the waveguide differ - consider a tapered pipe with water flowing thru it. the water goes faster the smaller the pipe becomes. ie, the same mass moves thru at a higher speed in the smaller pipe than the larger one. This is analagous to the group velocity of light in a waveguide.
Faster moving water impacts a wall with higher momentum than slow moving water.
One should thus easily see that the forces on each end of the waveguide are different. That part of the illustration is easy enough. The rest is hard as it involves relativity and the concept of an open system.

Let me think on it.

My quick survey of "group velocity" seems to say that this is the wrong way to consider momentum.  It seems to me to be more a bookkeeping invention.  When Shawyer's waveguide opens at one end, the group velocity will be lower, but the distribution of mass across that end of the waveguide will be higher because there's a larger surface area.  So in total, even though it is in some sense true to say the wave has lower velocity, it has the same momentum.  That is the bookkeeping I don't think Shawyer has done properly.

Note that group velocities can be zero and even negative but the photons always propagate at c:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Patchouli on 04/19/2009 05:46 PM

It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.
Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit.

Patchouli:

You didn't read or at least understand my scaling slide that I appended earlier.  Let me summarize it here again for you.  There are no currently known theoretical limits on the thrust generation capability of a gravinertial (G/I) field drive.  The only limits on the maximum thrust production for a given device are related to the design implementation details of the G/I thruster in question, i.e., how much power it can handle before it burns out and/or flys apart, just like you can build small rockets or large rockets.  G/I based thrusters with million pound thrusts or larger are conceivable and probably buildable once the G/I sciences are fully understood.  When creating a new science and technology, we take baby steps before we walk, and we have to walk before we run, but IMO we have at least taken the first few steps in this new journey.


I was thinking near term as for now we're limited to a few hundred kilowatts max with on board power supplies due to cooling needs.

Still it would be neat to put one on a microsat give a KW or so of power and see if you can rise the orbit a little.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/19/2009 05:54 PM
"Still it would be neat to put one on a microsat give a KW or so of power and see if you can rise the orbit a little."

That's a TRL 7 exercise.  If we had the money to do something like that, I think we'd be investing in better materials, have much higher thrust efficiencies and probably build a 3D platform one could drive around inside and outside ISS.  That would make for a better demonstration as one would be showing a higher level of mastery.  Also, for a short term demo, you can use batteries instead of expensive PV arrays.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/19/2009 08:00 PM
Seems like small thrusts are possible.  What you need on a long interstellar flight.  Pico-Newtons aren't very much.  About the power supply: it's good that it's potentially simple.  I have an old tube Mac that probably would be too heavy to levitate itself, but I bet it could climb up a cable to the Moon.

Anyhow, the power supply so far is attached to a cable, and the demonstrated force experiments are more like a balance beam, I gather.

I like the idea of research for it's own sake, and it's true that investors frown upon an inventor changing his direction without their assent.  But I still don't get it.  Is this technology at the proof of concep phase?

Now to read IAC- 08 – C4.4.7.

Woodward's thruster work is at the TRL 5-6.  There have been many sorts of "proof of concept."  The issue here is that science doesn't actually ever "prove" anything.  More what it does is disprove all the alternatives.  So point in fact, there is no one single standard of evidence that qualifies as 'scientific", etc.  What we have are many people from many backgrounds who each individually think one level of evidence is convincing and another compelling, etc.  So the goal is to compile as many sorts of evidence as possible.

The rotator evidence is very compelling to me since I understand there are no other proposed effects found in anti-phase to electrostriction that can explain Jim's findings.  So far as convincing the larger scientific community is concerned, there's no way to tell how physicists will respond.  In general they don't like each other.  :-) 

Read a quote today that the field of economics "advances one funeral at a time". This is IMHO the way too much science in long established fields tends to progress.

Physics especially. Looking back at the transition between the era of relativity to the era of quantum theory shows this to be particularly true. Einstein and a few Maxwellian types held back much quantum theory in the 1920s through the 40's when they died off finally.

It is amazing today that you meet people who insist that you comply with a simplistic misinterpretation of Newton when he's three centuries dead. FYI while Newton wasn't fully supplanted by relativity or quantum theory, problems with Newton were refined (for instance, Mercury's orbit, among a number of other things).

If some folks here insist that Mercury obeyed Newton precisely then they'd have to accept there was some other force changing its orbit or that astronomers were insane. Folks need to stop demanding the same of gravinertial thrusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/20/2009 12:10 AM
What I hear you not saying is that the power supply is still an issue.  And with the reported thrust levels so low, the power supply seems to be adding more mass than the device can push against.  At least push against usefully.

I understand that tweaking satellite orbits by use of PV panels for energy supply, and only needing small bursts
for useful work is a good use of this device.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/20/2009 01:45 AM
"What I hear you not saying is that the power supply is still an issue.  And with the reported thrust levels so low, the power supply seems to be adding more mass than the device can push against."

John, the question you're asking has been answered many times in this thread.  To recap, what you're asking about is what we call "thrust efficiency" which is a measure of the amount of thrust (measured in Newtons or "N") for the amount of electrical power (measured in watts or "W") supplied to the test item.  The test items run by Jim have a thrust efficiency too low to enable human spaceflight but could be used for things like satellite station keeping.

Now there's a huge difference between the thrust efficiencies found in test items in the lab, and the thrust efficiencies possible.  Star Drive just answered this question a couple days ago when he said that we know of no theoretical limit to how efficient these items can be.  So, in order to illustrate what is possible, and even probable, Star Drive (AKA Paul March) wrote his "WarpStar" paper a couple years ago and presented it at STAIF '07.  It was extremely well received and if you read above, you can find a link to the paper.

But in short, if we presume a specific thrust efficiency of 1 newton per watt (1N/W) then we can use this to extrapolate how this might enable human spaceflight.  This is the thrust efficiency figure chosen by Paul in the WarpStar 1 design and there are no reasons to believe this is an unrealistic figure.

So that you know what we're talking about, the WarpStar craft is designed to accelerate constantly between the Earth and the Moon.  It can provide constant acceleration based upon the power systems of the design and fly from the Earth to the Moon in about 5 hours, or less if you don't mind a higher acceleration.  It can unload several tons of cargo and fly back in 5 hours, only then to be refueled.  Since it doesn't need to make a hypersonic reentry, it can be refueled in just a few minutes, have its life support refreshed and be off for another round trip with almost no maintenance.  It's capable of VTOL with no downwash or exhaust and can be parked in a space the size of a medium business jet.  It can be used as a lunar sky crane for assembling large structures on the Moon.  All this is possible with the simple power systems available with hydrogen fuel cells.  A similar craft with 1N/W thrusters could be powered by a small fission reactor and have complete autonomy in our planetary system so far as propulsion needs are concerned.  It could fly to Mars at its closest approach in 2 days, or at its furthest in 5 days.  It could fly to the asteroid belt in 6 days or to Jupiter in 7 or to Saturn and a nice view of the rings in 9 days and such a craft could be designed to stay out for many months at a time, much like modern naval vessels.

What you need to understand is that thrust efficiency is the question you've now asked several times and you haven't understood the answer.  The answer is that these lab test items do not have the thrust efficiency to enable human spaceflight but they are proving the science necessary to develop those that could.

Hope that answers your question.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 04/20/2009 08:46 AM
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.

Firstly, please stop asserting that M-E gets 'around' Newtons third law any more than a game of tug-of-war does. The M-E reacts against the rest of the universe, period. While I understand thats a bit big of a concept for some folks, honestly though, it shouldn't be for anybody who has moved beyond the idea that anything outside our solar system is just little light bulbs on a big sphere.

By what mechanism is it reacting against the rest of the universe?  Why do other devices not react with the rest of the universe like this?  Why is this one special?  How can it instantaneously signal the rest of the universe to react?  Saying it is so doesn't make it so. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 04/20/2009 09:30 AM
Quote
Quote
EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are incorrect.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.

I took me a while to understand how it works. There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes. For the em-drive it is this that creates the force imbalance on the end walls of the cavity. In terms of momentum, if there are two equal masses and the total momentum p=p1-p2 then p is non zero when the velocities of the particle colliding at each end of the waveguide differ. The slope of the walls of the cavity ensure the collisions with the walls along the length result in a nonlinear force ie: the differing group velocities along the length of the sloping cavity ensure the particles don't just bounce around inside the cavity canceling each others forces totally out. One uses the law of relativistic velocity addition to see that there is forward motion when the thruster is viewed by an outside observer (thus an open system).
To illustrate:
If one fires two opposing canons within a closed box the impact of the canonballs against the walls will cancel out to result in zero motion. If either the velocity or the mass of one of the balls changes en-route to the wall then the impacts will not cancel out and there will be motion. The trick then is to deal with the lost mass or velocity. It has to have gone somewhere.
From the point of view of momentum; The em-drive looks at the change in velocity whereas the woodward drive looks at the change in mass. The both deal with the imbalance in different ways. EM-drive uses the properties of waveguides and relativity whereas woodward's drive uses machian mass fluctuations and a rectifier.
When one accounts for the energy absorbed into the system to create the motion then one retains conversation of energy. Same for momentum.

So I think I understand. Took me a while but I think I'm there. And it is basic physics! It USES newton laws. It just needed a different perspective.





I don't have time right now to go through the whole "theory paper" at emdrive.com line-by-line to show where the analysis is flawed, but there are *numerous* problems with the physics.  Hopefully I will get around to this at some point in the reasonably near future.  From a first read through of the text, though, my reaction was to quote Pauli: "That's not right, it's not even wrong."

For starters, the very first section claims that the group velocity of a wave in a waveguide changes with diameter of the waveguide.  OK, fine.  Then it starts to go wrong...  The next statement claims that the difference in group velocity from one end to the other causes a force imbalance, resulting in a net thrust.  To support this, the author brings up the completely unrelated Lorentz force equation (which describes the force on a charged particle in an electromagnetic field).  In that equation, the velocity referred to is the velocity of the charged particle, yet the author suggests that we should substitute the group velocity of a wave instead to see that the force changes.  He claims that because this equation responds to a change in velocity in one way, another unrelated system should as well.

The next section asserts that the force of radiation on a reflective flat plate is just 2nhfA, which is the correct classical result based on momentum transfer of the incident photons in the light.  Then he states, completely without support, that the force imparted by a wave with group velocity vg is 2nhfA*(vg/c).  Nowhere in the text is it explained why we should be using the group velocity of the wave to calculate force.

In reality, it is the momentum of the photons that we care about, not the group velocity.  And guess what, photons always travel at c.  Always.  Regardless of what the group velocity of the wave is (which can in fact be different than c).  Now they may change energy by interacting with an object, and thus momentum and force, but that is never mentioned in the text (which is actually a major problem).

There are other, worse, problems with the text (relativistic frames of reference problems, relativistic simultaneity and timeline problems, unaccounted for changes in photon energy, etc.), but those will have to wait until I have more time to really dig in. 

Please also keep in mind that this is not a peer-reviewed paper.  It is just the unverified writing of one person.  It should give anyone reading it pause when they realize he includes only three references, and one of them is a college physics textbook...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Spacenick on 04/20/2009 11:06 AM
If and only if there is any truth to this science, then this type of drive would be more then revolutionary even if it had only a thrust of half a newton and even then it would be more then enough for use in human space flight in general. The thing people have to understand is that to go the moon for the most part of the trip we don't need a levitatiing device such a device would be nice but it is absolutely not needed.
If we could construct a tug that could carry 25 mt to lunar orbit from LEO within a timeframe of say 1 year, we would already have a huge advantage for manned spaceflight because we could build a salyut size lunar orbiting station for less money then sending a space shuttle to the ISS.
If that tug would be reusable and we could build say 25 of them, we could easyly be talking about a lunar base, and we could probably do it without any heavy lift launches only with current rockets.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/20/2009 01:43 PM
Thanks for the explanation. Thrust efficiency is the term I was looking for.

A pico-newton is one trillionth of a newton.  It may be that the technology will scale as you hypothesise, but that's still a long way to go.

Is that level of thrust even enough to tweak a satellite's orbit?  And the current state is, roughly, a Carvin amp, at about 20 pounds, some kind of power supply, and some extra circuitry.  On the back of the ol' envelope, you'd roughly need a satellite of about 50-100 pounds to just demonstrate this in the real world. I'm sure something could be better modeled in software, but right now, the thrust efficiency is too low.

Further, the results haven't been replicated by a different lab, for reasons which sound vague.

I've read the article once, and now have blazotron's remarks to assist in my understanding.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/20/2009 03:01 PM
There's some other things worthy of note wrt emdrive.

About funding.  The Chinese have expressed interest in this technology, and seem willing to invest:

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1898

Also:

http://peakoil.com/energy-technology/chinese-say-they-re-building-impossible-space-drive-t45867.html

So there is some interest out there regarding this idea.  However, a Google search of the term:

CULLEN A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’IEE Proceedings Vol 99 Part IV 1952 P.100

yields 45 English pages, which are related to either the two sites above or to variants on Roger Shawyer or SPR.  It's hard to find other points of view on this subject than Shawyer's.

Perhaps someone has a better online source to review this paper.  I think it is important to pursue becasue this reference is cited as the explanation for the derived equation "2nhfA*(vg/c)" which blazotron finds fault with in his analysis above.  With only a basic understanding of the math involved, it seems clear to me that group velocity does not have a place in a force calculation.

Perhaps this relationship can be better explained.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/20/2009 03:17 PM
"By what mechanism is it reacting against the rest of the universe?  Why do other devices not react with the rest of the universe like this?  Why is this one special?  How can it instantaneously signal the rest of the universe to react?  Saying it is so doesn't make it so."

You sound like a physicist so let me appeal to you as if you are one.

The question you raise is the subject of all of Jim Woodward's theoretical writings found over the years in places like Foundations of Physics.  If you're a physicist with a real interest, you'll want to read the papers rather than take the word of a mindless philosopher like myself.  You can find some of the papers here:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html

However, to answer your question in short: the mechanism you are asking about is the ability to create a Mach Effect (M-E) otherwise known as a "mass fluctuation."  Jim's true genius apart from being a wonderfully gifted experimenter, is his bringing Mach's Principle together with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in order to show that under very specific conditions, the mass of a material will undergo a temporary fluctuation.  What we have is the entire, casually connected universe and its consequent "gravinertial field' as per Mach's Principle, can be used to generate a gravinertial flux into and out of the ceramic in question, causing its mass to fluctuate temporarily.

I'm sure that sounds like an outrageous claim to any physicist who has never studied Mach's Principle or read any of Jim Woodward's papers.  :-)  It's not so outrageous and this was all peer reviewed more than a decade ago.

So let me invite you to take a few minutes and read at least one of Jim's papers from over the years.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/20/2009 03:28 PM
Thanks for the explanation. Thrust efficiency is the term I was looking for.

A pico-newton is one trillionth of a newton.  It may be that the technology will scale as you hypothesise, but that's still a long way to go.

Is that level of thrust even enough to tweak a satellite's orbit?  And the current state is, roughly, a Carvin amp, at about 20 pounds, some kind of power supply, and some extra circuitry.  On the back of the ol' envelope, you'd roughly need a satellite of about 50-100 pounds to just demonstrate this in the real world. I'm sure something could be better modeled in software, but right now, the thrust efficiency is too low.

Further, the results haven't been replicated by a different lab, for reasons which sound vague.

I've read the article once, and now have blazotron's remarks to assist in my understanding.

Well, we're not talking about pico-Newtons.  We're talking about uN or micro-Newtons which are also pretty small but not quite so small as you're talking.  :-)

Again about power system size.  Look, go on EBay and look for an ultrasonic carpet cleaner or an ultrasonic contact lens cleaner.  You'll find a $10 item that is handheld and weighs about 1/4 to 1/2 pound. The power supply in these items would work well to power a future MLT or UFG and the amount of thrust it would produce depends upon the thrust efficiency of the thruster.  But in short, though these power systems need to be carefully impedance matched, just as with any power system, they are not large, heavy etc.  As I said, one has been built and run for a 1 Mhz thruster that was half the size of a Coke can.  The power systems and supplies do not have to be large and heavy, but useful thrusters do need to have a certain level of thrust efficiency.

This work has been done in at least two labs, Jim Woodward's lab at CS Fullerton and Paul March's lab in Houston. I would love to see more replications happen very soon.  Perhaps the rotator, since it is such an inexpensive experiment to do; will get some more people interested.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/20/2009 08:07 PM
Folks:

Let me clarify a few things that G/I Thruster has said recently.  I know of at least nine other attempts at replicating Jim's Woodward mass fluctuation conjecture, his unidirectional force generators (UFG) or the Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) devices.  I’ll list them below in the year they were first published:

1.   Hector Brito’s ~1996 self contained battery operated MLT like device running at ~40 kHz that demonstrated ~1.0 micro-Newton level thrusts based on his E&M Slepian approach to this propellantless thruster business. 

2.  Andrew Palfreyman’s 1990’s UFG experiment reporting null results.

3.  Woodward’s 1997-9 graduate student Tom Mahood with his ~50 kHz UFG torque pendulum in a vacuum experiments that demonstrated thrust levels on the order of 0.10 to 1.00 micro-Newton.

4.  John Mckeever’s Oak-Ridge lab team’s 2000 MLT replication that reported thrust signatures  that were attributed to thermal effects.

5.  Paul March’s 2004 & 2005 MLT data running at 2.2 and 3.8 MHz reported up to 5.0 milli-Newton results.

6.  John Cramer’s 2005 thru 2007, 220 Hz Machian Guitar mass fluctuation experiment which resulted in an ambiguous results before their BPP money ran out.

7.  Nembo Buldrini’s 2006, 50 kHz and 2.0 MHz ambiguous or null results.

8.  John Strader’s 2006, ~400 kHz MLT experiments that reported null results.

9.  Duncan Cumming’s 2007 self-contained coke can MLT running at ~400 kHz reported null results.

10.  Jim Woodward’s latest 2008/2009 M-E rotary proof of principle tests that have clearly demonstrated above the noise 2-omega M-E like mass fluctuations signatures.


Looking back over this list I can appreciate why a lot of folks view Woodward’s M-E conjecture in the same light as they do the “Cold Fusion” conjecture, but in a similar way, I believe that Woodward’s M-E conjecture will be validated in a similar manner as the cold fusion story has unfolded over the last twenty years.  (See attached CBS 60 Minutes story on the resurrection of cold fusion that aired yesterday (04-19-2009).  Why do I think this way?  Because of the extreme difficulty in getting the phase relations between the acoustical and electrical drive signals in these M-E based devices to constructively interfere with each other instead of killing each other off.   In others words there are thousands of ways to build and operate these devices where they won’t work, but there is only a few ways to build and operate them where they will work.  Hector Brito, Tom Mahood and I are the only folks that I know of who happened to luck into the right combination of ingredients to make it play with my and Jim Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT experiment providing the largest thrust signatures to date.

BTW, Woodward’s lowest vacuum pressure ever achieved in his lab was on the order of ~2x10^-3 Torr and not 1x10^-6 Torr as reported by G/I thruster.  Considering that Woodward has never pumped his Plexiglas vacuum chambers with anything more than a standard Welch vacuum roughing pump, that is hardly surprising.  However, ~2x10^-3 Torr pressure is quite sufficient to kill off 99.99% of the ion wind issues that could contaminate Woodward’s MLT results, even when his MLTs were only producing a few micro-Newton. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/20/2009 09:19 PM
Yes well, memory fades.  I checked and you're right Paul, Jim's vacuum is E-3T.  But your memory isn't so good either!  I think John ran at 200 khz and Duncan at 1 mhz.  :-)  Also, since Hector was not even looking at Woodward's theory, and John was trying to run self induced currents, you wouldn't necessarily put them on the list.

And certainly you missed all of Jim's work until 2008.  Oooops. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/21/2009 04:19 AM
G/I Thruster:

Dr. Cumming ran two different experiments with the first one running at 430 kHz and the second one in self contained Coke can version at ~1.0 MHz, so I was wrong on the second one and correct on the first.  However, both of these tests were still null results. 

As to Hector Brito's Slepian work, Hector may not have based his theoretical approach on Dr. Woodward's M-E conjecture, but the end results created near identical experimetnal ExB designs when compared to Jim's MLTs, so if it works or doesn't, IMO it still has a bearing on this verification list.

BTW, I didn't include the majority of Dr. Woodward's experiments during this time period because I was trying to list independent verifications by other experimenters and I only included Jim’s latest 2008/9 M-E proof of principle rotary work because of its importance and since nobody has tried a replication of it yet. 


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 04/21/2009 05:59 AM
I have been thinking about small scale technology demonstrators. Comments earlier about ultrasonic contact lens cleaner reminded me of a toothbrush I bought recently. Manufacturer claims 1.6 Mhz for over twenty minutes cumulative between charges. Amazingly small and light, I wonder how far it will fly after I modify it into a model rocket. I have had great fun launching 35mm film canisters from my hand after filling with a little water and half an alka-seltzer tablet. Makes a wonderful demonstration for grade school kids.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 04/21/2009 08:26 AM
"By what mechanism is it reacting against the rest of the universe?  Why do other devices not react with the rest of the universe like this?  Why is this one special?  How can it instantaneously signal the rest of the universe to react?  Saying it is so doesn't make it so."

You sound like a physicist so let me appeal to you as if you are one.

The question you raise is the subject of all of Jim Woodward's theoretical writings found over the years in places like Foundations of Physics.  If you're a physicist with a real interest, you'll want to read the papers rather than take the word of a mindless philosopher like myself.  You can find some of the papers here:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html

However, to answer your question in short: the mechanism you are asking about is the ability to create a Mach Effect (M-E) otherwise known as a "mass fluctuation."  Jim's true genius apart from being a wonderfully gifted experimenter, is his bringing Mach's Principle together with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in order to show that under very specific conditions, the mass of a material will undergo a temporary fluctuation.  What we have is the entire, casually connected universe and its consequent "gravinertial field' as per Mach's Principle, can be used to generate a gravinertial flux into and out of the ceramic in question, causing its mass to fluctuate temporarily.

I'm sure that sounds like an outrageous claim to any physicist who has never studied Mach's Principle or read any of Jim Woodward's papers.  :-)  It's not so outrageous and this was all peer reviewed more than a decade ago.

So let me invite you to take a few minutes and read at least one of Jim's papers from over the years.

I'm an engineer, but I have a strong background in physics, so I can hold my own until the math gets really gnarly.  I have not looked at any of Woodward's papers before, so I'll gladly do that when I get a chance.  Unfortunately, I am leaving in a few days for a 3 week stint at a caving expedition to Mexico (http://www.usdct.org if you are interested--and no I am not insane enough to dive in-cave), so it will be a while before I can sit down and really absorb them. 

[edited for typo]
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 04/21/2009 08:47 AM
Folks:

Let me clarify a few things that G/I Thruster has said recently.  I know of at least nine other attempts at replicating Jim's Woodward mass fluctuation conjecture, his unidirectional force generators (UFG) or the Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) devices.  I’ll list them below in the year they were first published:

1.   Hector Brito’s ~1996 self contained battery operated MLT like device running at ~40 kHz that demonstrated ~1.0 micro-Newton level thrusts based on his E&M Slepian approach to this propellantless thruster business. 

2.  Andrew Palfreyman’s 1990’s UFG experiment reporting null results.

3.  Woodward’s 1997-9 graduate student Tom Mahood with his ~50 kHz UFG torque pendulum in a vacuum experiments that demonstrated thrust levels on the order of 0.10 to 1.00 micro-Newton.

4.  John Mckeever’s Oak-Ridge lab team’s 2000 MLT replication that reported thrust signatures  that were attributed to thermal effects.

5.  Paul March’s 2004 & 2005 MLT data running at 2.2 and 3.8 MHz reported up to 5.0 milli-Newton results.

6.  John Cramer’s 2005 thru 2007, 220 Hz Machian Guitar mass fluctuation experiment which resulted in an ambiguous results before their BPP money ran out.

7.  Nembo Buldrini’s 2006, 50 kHz and 2.0 MHz ambiguous or null results.

8.  John Strader’s 2006, ~400 kHz MLT experiments that reported null results.

9.  Duncan Cumming’s 2007 self-contained coke can MLT running at ~400 kHz reported null results.

10.  Jim Woodward’s latest 2008/2009 M-E rotary proof of principle tests that have clearly demonstrated above the noise 2-omega M-E like mass fluctuations signatures.


Looking back over this list I can appreciate why a lot of folks view Woodward’s M-E conjecture in the same light as they do the “Cold Fusion” conjecture, but in a similar way, I believe that Woodward’s M-E conjecture will be validated in a similar manner as the cold fusion story has unfolded over the last twenty years.  (See attached CBS 60 Minutes story on the resurrection of cold fusion that aired yesterday (04-19-2009).  Why do I think this way?  Because of the extreme difficulty in getting the phase relations between the acoustical and electrical drive signals in these M-E based devices to constructively interfere with each other instead of killing each other off.   In others words there are thousands of ways to build and operate these devices where they won’t work, but there is only a few ways to build and operate them where they will work.  Hector Brito, Tom Mahood and I are the only folks that I know of who happened to luck into the right combination of ingredients to make it play with my and Jim Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT experiment providing the largest thrust signatures to date.

BTW, Woodward’s lowest vacuum pressure ever achieved in his lab was on the order of ~2x10^-3 Torr and not 1x10^-6 Torr as reported by G/I thruster.  Considering that Woodward has never pumped his Plexiglas vacuum chambers with anything more than a standard Welch vacuum roughing pump, that is hardly surprising.  However, ~2x10^-3 Torr pressure is quite sufficient to kill off 99.99% of the ion wind issues that could contaminate Woodward’s MLT results, even when his MLTs were only producing a few micro-Newton. 


Star-Drive:

Thank you for the nice summary of experimental work.

I wanted to comment that while 2E-3 Torr may be plenty to kill off most of the ion effects, it places the pressure almost at the peak of the Crookes Radiometer effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/21/2009 12:18 PM
Blazotron:

This independent M-E conjecture experimental verification list is not exhaustive, but it does cover the major replication efforts I'm familiar with. 

As to the Crookes Radiometer effect, that is somewhat problematic at 2x10^3 Torr and it is one reason I keep harping on going down to at least 1x10^-6 Torr or even 1x10^-7 Torr where the vacuum relay folks hang their hats.  However, Woodward did mitigate the Radiometer effect and others like it by potting all his latter vacuum test articles in steel Faraday shields that would have killed off any such thrust effects.  In other words what he is reporting is most likely something that is NOT due to mundane effects.  He is too good an experimeter to get caught in that trap more than once.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/21/2009 04:43 PM
Folks:

Let me clarify a few things that G/I Thruster has said recently.  I know of at least nine other attempts at replicating Jim's Woodward mass fluctuation conjecture, his unidirectional force generators (UFG) or the Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) devices.  I’ll list them below in the year they were first published:

1.   Hector Brito’s ~1996 self contained battery operated MLT like device running at ~40 kHz that demonstrated ~1.0 micro-Newton level thrusts based on his E&M Slepian approach to this propellantless thruster business. 

2.  Andrew Palfreyman’s 1990’s UFG experiment reporting null results.

3.  Woodward’s 1997-9 graduate student Tom Mahood with his ~50 kHz UFG torque pendulum in a vacuum experiments that demonstrated thrust levels on the order of 0.10 to 1.00 micro-Newton.

4.  John Mckeever’s Oak-Ridge lab team’s 2000 MLT replication that reported thrust signatures  that were attributed to thermal effects.

5.  Paul March’s 2004 & 2005 MLT data running at 2.2 and 3.8 MHz reported up to 5.0 milli-Newton results.

6.  John Cramer’s 2005 thru 2007, 220 Hz Machian Guitar mass fluctuation experiment which resulted in an ambiguous results before their BPP money ran out.

7.  Nembo Buldrini’s 2006, 50 kHz and 2.0 MHz ambiguous or null results.

8.  John Strader’s 2006, ~400 kHz MLT experiments that reported null results.

9.  Duncan Cumming’s 2007 self-contained coke can MLT running at ~400 kHz reported null results.

10.  Jim Woodward’s latest 2008/2009 M-E rotary proof of principle tests that have clearly demonstrated above the noise 2-omega M-E like mass fluctuations signatures.


Looking back over this list I can appreciate why a lot of folks view Woodward’s M-E conjecture in the same light as they do the “Cold Fusion” conjecture, but in a similar way, I believe that Woodward’s M-E conjecture will be validated in a similar manner as the cold fusion story has unfolded over the last twenty years.  (See attached CBS 60 Minutes story on the resurrection of cold fusion that aired yesterday (04-19-2009).  Why do I think this way?  Because of the extreme difficulty in getting the phase relations between the acoustical and electrical drive signals in these M-E based devices to constructively interfere with each other instead of killing each other off.   In others words there are thousands of ways to build and operate these devices where they won’t work, but there is only a few ways to build and operate them where they will work.  Hector Brito, Tom Mahood and I are the only folks that I know of who happened to luck into the right combination of ingredients to make it play with my and Jim Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT experiment providing the largest thrust signatures to date.

BTW, Woodward’s lowest vacuum pressure ever achieved in his lab was on the order of ~2x10^-3 Torr and not 1x10^-6 Torr as reported by G/I thruster.  Considering that Woodward has never pumped his Plexiglas vacuum chambers with anything more than a standard Welch vacuum roughing pump, that is hardly surprising.  However, ~2x10^-3 Torr pressure is quite sufficient to kill off 99.99% of the ion wind issues that could contaminate Woodward’s MLT results, even when his MLTs were only producing a few micro-Newton. 


Star-Drive:

Thank you for the nice summary of experimental work.

I wanted to comment that while 2E-3 Torr may be plenty to kill off most of the ion effects, it places the pressure almost at the peak of the Crookes Radiometer effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer

That's a very astute observation.  However, Woodward's controls care after even that issue.

The point of vacuum is that if there is any ion wind or thermal contamination of the data, this will be apparent from even E-1T.  If you run a test item and get a specific thrust result, then run it at E-1T and E-2T and get the same result, then you can guess you'll get the same at E-3T and you're justified in accepting there is no ion wind or thermal forms of spurious.  Another way we know we are not seeing something like Crooke's is that the thrusters are reversible.  For instance, an MLT will produce no thrust when its e and b fields are phased at 0 or 180 degrees.  They produce thrust in one direction at 90* and thrust in the opposite direction at 270*.  That's not something that can be explained by reference to radiometers.

Cool that you're caving.  Too bad you're not doing the diving.  Did someone hire you to carry out the em. . .you know. . .stuff you can't leave behind?  Or are you paying someone else to carry their trash?  :-)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/21/2009 07:19 PM
Sorry about the misunderstanding between pico- and micro-.  I got pico-from stardrives post on 04-19-09.

Backing up to the Warpstar craft.  It is not actually designed, it is thought to be designed.  Without getting too hung up semantically, it is not designed at the same level of detail that Ares is, or even Jupiter Direct.  Therefore I think it’s a bit premature to be speaking of it as if it were designed to reach the Moon in a couple of hours, whereas the folks designing Ares seem to have more credibility in saying that their craft is designed to reach the Moon in a couple of days.

Again, a semantic bit of hand waving.  I’m not satisfied with the idea that science can’t “prove” any thing, because what science does is provide “compelling evidence”.  Let me rephrase my remarks to suggest that Jim Woodward has not offered sufficient “compelling evidence” so that there is little room for debate as to the outcome of his experiments.

But also about the power requirements.  There’s a post above that mentions a Carvin 2kw amp.  This thing has got to weigh twenty pounds or more, and be supplied by 110V current, right?  Please explain how a 2kw power supply provides only micro-newtons of force.  It would seem that an electric motor is more efficient.

But more about the math and my reading of IAC- 08 – C4.4.7.  which I’ll call “The Theory Paper”.

Group velocity is the speed with which the modulation of the wave propagates through space.  It is not the speed which any particles propagate. It is here that the paper falls apart for me, and is precisely the point in the cannonball analogy above where the analogy falls apart.  All of the cannonballs’ momentii (if that’s the word) will cancel out, unless the mass of a cannonball changes.  Then the analogy can propel itself forward.  But there’s no explanation of what it is that changes about the cannonballs to provide momentum.

Group velocity is dw/dk, where w is the wave’s angular frequency and k is the wave number.  I don’t see how this affects momentum.

In blazotron’s analysis of the theory paper, he states: “Then [Shawyer] states, completely without support, that the force imparted by a wave with group velocity vg is 2nhfA*(vg/c).  Nowhere in the text is it explained why we should be using the group velocity of the wave to calculate force.”  I think blazeotron is somewhat incorrect in stating where in the text is this explained.  The author alludes to:

CULLEN A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’ IEE proceedings Vol 99 Part IV 1952

as explaining where he gets the above derivation.  But this is not an actual explanation, so semantically I guess, blazotron is right!

Please post Cullen’s paper on this forum.  A simple web search will not provide this paper online.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/21/2009 08:09 PM
"But also about the power requirements.  There’s a post above that mentions a Carvin 2kw amp.  This thing has got to weigh twenty pounds or more, and be supplied by 110V current, right?  Please explain how a 2kw power supply provides only micro-newtons of force.  It would seem that an electric motor is more efficient."

Em, yeah.  An electric motor would be more efficient than the test articles to date if indeed it had something in space to actually push off of--which it would not--which is why till the foreseeable future we're stuck with rockets.

Look, yer joshin' me right?  How many times do you need an answer to the same question?

To the best of my knowledge, the most power ever dissipated in any of the test articles is about 400 watts.  You can get that from a single battery the size of a wine cork.

Look, if you want to form a meaningful comparison between M-E thrusters and existing tech, perhaps we can fumble through one though I don't see this as useful yet.  But lets have at.

I don't know how many watts Paul March used on his MTL but lets say he used 250.  He got 5 mN thrust.  If that's so, then the same thruster could be bundled with three others and you'd have 20 mN thrust, the same as the max thrust of the ion thrusters on the GOCE.  Now I don't know what the power requirements are for the GOCE thrusters but I do know they require 40 kg of Xenon for a 2 year mission, plus the power system.  So if your MLT bundle is anywhere in the ballpark of 40 kg, and the power requirements are anything near the same (1KW), you know that the MLT is competitive with some of the best ion tech out there.

Anyone know what GOCE's thrusters require?

But again let me state in no uncertain terms that I am NOT SAYING this is a useful comparison.  Before we could talk about competing with things like ion, we'd have to solve issues like the ceramic ageing issue and we haven't even begun to look into that yet.  We are not working on prototyping.  We're working on pure research.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/21/2009 10:22 PM

"But also about the power requirements.  There’s a post above that mentions a Carvin 2kw amp.  This thing has got to weigh twenty pounds or more, and be supplied by 110V current, right?  Please explain how a 2kw power supply provides only micro-newtons of force.  It would seem that an electric motor is more efficient."

Em, yeah.  An electric motor would be more efficient than the test articles to date if indeed it had something in space to actually push off of--which it would not--which is why till the foreseeable future we're stuck with rockets.
.
(snip)
.

I don't know how many watts Paul March used on his MTL but lets say he used 250.  He got 5 mN thrust.  If that's so, then the same thruster could be bundled with three others and you'd have 20 mN thrust, the same as the max thrust of the ion thrusters on the GOCE.  Now I don't know what the power requirements are for the GOCE thrusters but I do know they require 40 kg of Xenon for a 2 year mission, plus the power system.  So if your MLT bundle is anywhere in the ballpark of 40 kg, and the power requirements are anything near the same (1KW), you know that the MLT is competitive with some of the best ion tech out there.

Anyone know what GOCE's thrusters require?

But again let me state in no uncertain terms that I am NOT SAYING this is a useful comparison.  Before we could talk about competing with things like ion, we'd have to solve issues like the ceramic ageing issue and we haven't even begun to look into that yet.  We are not working on prototyping.  We're working on pure research.

Guys:

The Mach-2MHz that produced a peak thrust of ~5.0 milli-Newton was absorbing approximately 7.0 Watts from the 3.8 MHz transmitter it was attached to at the time.  In other words its efficiency was ~0.714 mill-Newton/Watt or its Newton/Watt efficiency was 0.00071 Newton/Watt.

If you don't like that performance metric, how about the equivalent specific impulse (Isp-e) approach that utilizes the E=m*c^2 energy to mass equivalency equation which indicates that the Mach-2MHz had an Isp-e of ~1.0 tera-seconds, see the attached derivation.  This level of performance is currently very competitive with a number of ion rockets on an Isp basis, but as noted by G/I Thruster, its lifetime is only measured in minutes, instead of years required by current satellite customers, and its thrust level needs to be brought up to the ~100 milli-Newton range to be competitive with the likes of NASA's Deep Space-1.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/21/2009 11:19 PM
Thanks Paul but if you could help us out here, I honestly believe John's concern is better answered not by looking at Isp and mass energy equivalence, but by comparison to something like GOCE.  If your test article only dissipated 7 watts, then using it as an example, we can say that 4 of them would provide the same thrust as the GOCE system.  GOCE is covered in PV cells and it's a safe bet I think that the thrusters need a lot more than 28 watts.  So if we ignore the ceramic die-off issue, and toss in some spit-ball figures for MLT thermal stability subsystems, we can still assert that your experiment shows performance well in advance of this new satellite station keeping system.  An MLT with no thrust efficiency improvement over what you saw in the lab would be vastly more capable than this cutting-edge system being flown by ESA.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 04/21/2009 11:23 PM
cutting-edge system being flown by ESA.

What cutting-edge system?  Ion propulsion is not new.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/21/2009 11:38 PM
cutting-edge system being flown by ESA.

What cutting-edge system?  Ion propulsion is not new.

Ion is not new.  It's had millions in development for more than 4 decades.  But as the text says, no normal propulsion system can do what it does.  GOCE itself is new.  Very new.  A good standard to measure against when talking about satellite station-keeping:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/SEMSZCEH1TF_0.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 04/22/2009 02:34 AM
<snip>
In blazotron’s analysis of the theory paper, he states: “Then [Shawyer] states, completely without support, that the force imparted by a wave with group velocity vg is 2nhfA*(vg/c).  Nowhere in the text is it explained why we should be using the group velocity of the wave to calculate force.”  I think blazeotron is somewhat incorrect in stating where in the text is this explained.  The author alludes to:

CULLEN A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’ IEE proceedings Vol 99 Part IV 1952

as explaining where he gets the above derivation.  But this is not an actual explanation, so semantically I guess, blazotron is right!

Please post Cullen’s paper on this forum.  A simple web search will not provide this paper online.

My impression was that the reference to that paper was in regards to the derivation of the radiation pressure.  Looking at it again, it seems a little ambiguous to me which he is referring to.  That article is hard to get, but I put a request in to the library here to pull the journals from the remote storage they are located in now.  Hopefully I will have them to post before I leave for the expedition.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/22/2009 04:03 AM
cutting-edge system being flown by ESA.

What cutting-edge system?  Ion propulsion is not new.

Ion is not new.  It's had millions in development for more than 4 decades.  But as the text says, no normal propulsion system can do what it does.  GOCE itself is new.  Very new.  A good standard to measure against when talking about satellite station-keeping:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/SEMSZCEH1TF_0.html

G/I Thruster:

For the record, the GOCE electric ion thruster's maximum Isp is 3,500 seconds per the following document:

http://earth.esa.int/goce04/goce_proceedings/46_edwards.pdf

That's not very high even by ion rocket standards, but it still makes the Mach-2MHz during its peak performance period have an Isp ratio of 1.2x10^12 sec / 3,500 sec = 342,857,143.0 to 1.0 in comparsion to the GOCE ion rockets.  I guess we could say that was a reasonable improvement in propulsion efficiency for a new system... :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 04/22/2009 05:45 AM
I think it's kinda silly to calculate Isp based on mass-energy expenditure, unless you're powering your thruster with a total conversion plant.  Sure, it satisfies Tsiolkovsky's equation, but with modern energy supplies like hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells (or even hydrogen/boron-11 fusion reactors) you have to bring a preposterous amount of fuel to get a significantly non-unity mass ratio that way, so it's not really an informative representation...

If you assume expended fuel is dumped overboard, a reasonable estimate can be obtained for WarpStar 1 using conventional procedures.  At 1 N/W, we get

(1 N.s/J)*(1.504e7 J/kg)/(9.80665 N/kg) = 1.534e6 s

Still not bad - according to Wikipedia, that's 15 times as high as the theoretical maximum for an Orion...

If you keep expended fuel on the ship (possibly a better alternative than wasting all that water, even though performance suffers a bit), it gets complicated.  Technically the mass-energy method is more correct, but as mentioned above it's uninformative.  It also reaches a singularity with a solar-powered thruster, where (except for solar panel ablation and such) no mass at all is expended.

For a solar-powered thruster, or even a thruster-on-a-flywheel-powered thruster, perhaps we could back-calculate an effective Isp out of Tsiolkovsky's equation using the power system mass and mean time between failures:

dV = F*t/m -> F*t/(m*g*ln(MR)) = Isp

where t is the MTBF for the power system, m is the total mass and MR is the ratio between m and the non-power-system mass.  This should also work reasonably well for a fueled thruster if you take t as the fuel exhaustion time and MR as the familiar fueled/dry mass ratio:

WarpStar 1: (3.2e10 N.s)/((26465 kg)*(9.80665 N/kg)*ln(1.087)) = 1.47e6 s

which is fairly close to the water-dumping maximum calculated above, probably due to the near-unity mass ratio. Of course, this method results in an Isp that depends on spacecraft parameters...  Isp really wasn't designed to deal with propellantless thrusters...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/22/2009 03:09 PM
I would say that ion propulsion is pretty cutting edge; it’s not the date the idea was floated, it’s more like the date the tech becomes widespread.

And, 400 watts from a cork sized battery?  I don’t have access to this technology.  Is this actually a capacitor battery, one that you charge the heck out of and then can use to power the thrusters?

Apologies for not being able to move beyond Cullen’s paper.  I’m not knowledgeable enough about the field to move beyond the equation I get stuck on.  How does group velocity factor into this?

And I’m still struggling with thrust efficiency; they seem unbelievably high.  The principle of MLT, if I understand correctly, is the direct conversion of energy to momentum, which bypasses the inefficiency of propelling hot gas or ions as in typical propulsion systems.  At the same time there is the payload savings of not having to carry all the propellant and rocket infrastructure, which just weighs down the craft, especially when empty.

The suggestion seems to be that the Carvin amp or whatever, is a laboratory expedient.  The proposed self contained energy supply would be some sort of super capacitor whose energy could be tapped for momentum conversion.  This capacitor would carry more energy than a nuclear reactor of the same energy output.  Is that correct?

Even so, current output for a 2kw system is on the order of micro-newtons.  It would still have to be scaled up to a 1kw system putting out milli-newtons, as in GOCE.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/22/2009 05:13 PM
"And, 400 watts from a cork sized battery?  I don't have access to this technology.  Is this actually a capacitor battery, one that you charge the heck out of and then can use to power the thrusters?"

Yes, these are the new batteries from A123 that will be powering the next generation of electric vehicles like the Chevy Volt.  I picked up a test kit with 3 of these cells a year or two ago and sent it to a PhD EE friend who benched them for me.  They do indeed put out over 400 watts each and have a C rating of more than 40.  But they're batteries, not supercaps.  The barium titaniate "supercap" technology from EEStor is reported to have an even higher power density but that's not on the market yet.

"The suggestion seems to be that the Carvin amp or whatever, is a laboratory expedient.  The proposed self contained energy supply would be some sort of super capacitor whose energy could be tapped for momentum conversion.  This capacitor would carry more energy than a nuclear reactor of the same energy output.  Is that correct?"

Well the point is that no one would ever try to fly something like the Carvin.  Have you thought what the extension cord would weigh?  :-)  Amps, generators, invertors, power supplies of all sorts can be miniaturized and they work on completely different principles when they're driven by a DC source as opposed to something you plug into the wall.  Now all that aside, the source that powers the inverter, or whatever, the place we get the power from--has to be suitable to the task you want to accomplish.

When Paul was originally writing the WarpStar paper he and I discussed quite a bit what is a suitable illustration.  1 N/W baseline figure was chosen because is was viewed as an attainable goal and yet, not so overwhelmingly efficient that the illustration would be rendered trite.  With this sort of thrust efficiency, it still matters where you get your power from.  He was forced to choose the highest energy density system he could find for a 12 hour duration flight (5 hours each way plus margins.)  Now if you had 10 N/W MLT's, you could easily fly to LEO on batteries and they wouldn't even need to be good batteries.  You could fly WarpStar 1 to Mars regularly, etc.  The point of the illustration is not to make outrageous claims.  It's to get us start thinking about how electric spacecraft are so very different from rockets.  Once you replace "boost and glide" with "the one gee solution" everything is different.  We need to think about that.

So to answer your question about a cap vs a fission reactor, that's not really a good handling of the issue.  Caps have to be charged after every use.  Fission reactors are "charged" much less often and they run for a very long time (typically 5 years I think) on that charge.  Fission is a nice source for spacecraft that stay out for many months at a time but supercaps would be great for something robotic flying round trip to LEO every 3 hours.  Each power system has a place or rather, each application has reasons to optimize by using one power source rather than others.

And BTW, yes I know GOCE doesn't have the Isp of Deep Space 1, but for a first application of a low thrust efficiency M-E thruster, we are probably looking at satellite station keeping, not robotic travel to Jupiter's icy moons.  So GECO really is the more applicable technology to compare against.  So far, the discovery phase lab experiments seem to have a huge advantage over the cutting edge-tech on GECO.

Someone tell me if I remember correctly--NASA spends $50 million annually boosting hydrazine to ISS to keep her on orbit?  If we had commercial thrusters with efficiencies like what Paul saw, we could replace all the hydrazine on ISS and save about half a billion dollars over the course of a decade.  That's just one application.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/22/2009 07:11 PM
So the power source is envisioned as either a super battery or a super cap, which will have to be recharged upon return from, say, the Moon, roughly a ten to twelve hour trip.

But if we're accelerating our craft, say an Orion Service Module sized craft (3700kg), 1G halfway to the Moon, and 1G deceleration, landing, and returning the same way, that's a fair amount of power, much more than they're currently envisioning for a more leisurely five day trip.  I understand that the technology isn't quite ready for this scale, but that would be the goal of Warpstar, wouldn't it?

Backing up to the more nearly attainable satellite orbit tweakage function, the sticking point is currently mass of power supply and impedance matching circuitry, right?

And further backing up to that blasted Carvin amp.  It's true, then, what I suggest; that the device is still plugged into the wall.  Back at the lab.  Which is fine, because my Mac amp is only playing CD's.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/22/2009 07:38 PM
One can envision any suitable power source.  In the WarpStar design, GM fuel cells generate electricity from the H2 stored on board.  I suggest you look at the paper.  It's a fun read.

Things like impedance matching are not a significant technical hurdle.  There are probably hundreds of thousands of EE's who know how to do this and it is routinely done in all electronics.  The trouble here only comes when you're working alone with no budget.  Jim is a genius but he's not an EE.  If he had an EE working full time in the lab, much more than twice the work would be getting done.

The significant hurdles have to do with things like: building a demonstrator that produces so much thrust one can't quibble or ignore it, solving the ceramic ageing issue, designing thermal stability systems, etc.  None of this is particularly challenging so far as we know.  For instance, there's already been a lot of conjecture concerning the ageing issue.  If we were to take some ceramic from a played out MLT or UFG, slice it and stick it under a scanning electron microscope, we'd have answers instantly.  Maybe not all of them but in just a few minutes we'd be on the road to discovery.  Trouble is, you don't get time on a SEM without a budget.

Yes, all Jim's tests are with the test items plugged into the wall.  When it comes time for a new kind of demonstration, it's a simple matter to have someone build a self -contained, battery operated power system and we know who to go to for this since they've done it before.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/22/2009 09:56 PM
G/I Thruster:

"Someone tell me if I remember correctly--NASA spends $50 million annually boosting hydrazine to ISS to keep her on orbit?"

Dependent on what Russia is charging us today and tomorrow, the last figure I saw for ISS reboost costs was ~$150 million per year plus the $40 million taxi service charge for each astronaut brought up to and ferried back home.  All in the name of international cooperation...

93143

“Of course, this method results in an Isp that depends on spacecraft parameters...  Isp really wasn't designed to deal with propellantless thrusters...”

You can measure propulsion efficiency on an engine level or a vehicle level and both approaches have their merits and shortfalls dependent on the analysis goals.  The first performance metric I tendered, i.e., the Newton/Watt metric, is much more engine specific than the equivalent Isp metric, which like its rocket brethren, is more vehicle performance centric, but both are usable dependent on the goal of the analysis and the intended audience.  Since most rocket technologists already understand specific impulse, that metric provides a readymade performance ruler that we can all point to when comparing conventional rockets with these M-E field propulsion driven vehicles that directly convert gravinertial field energy into a directed momentum flux in the G/I field that can in turn be applied to the vehicle with some efficiency number applied to this conversion process.  That’s where the Newton/Watt figure makes the most sense to use though one could also use a heat pump like coefficient of performance (COP) metric as well, but the end results are the same.  You put in XXX.X Watts of locally supplied catalytic power into the M-E based field drive from a local vehicle energy source like a battery, fuel cell, or nuclear power plant, and the M-E drive then produces XXX.XX Newton of thrust for XXXX number of seconds.   How long that thrust is produced is strictly a matter of the energy density (Joules/kg) of the local source. 

Now if you want to determine the terminal velocities of an M-E driven vehicle, then the M-E drive’s equivalent Isp and Total Impulse (mass*velocity) metrics comes in handy for calculating such figures because they take into account the magnitude (max power of both the power supply and M-E drive) and temporal limitations (how long they can both run) of the vehicle’s engines, local energy source AND the equivalent mass/energy harvested from the G/I field.  This is where John’s confusion seem to come into play per his below comments:

JohnFornaro

“The suggestion seems to be that the Carvin amp or whatever, is a laboratory expedient.  The proposed self contained energy supply would be some sort of super capacitor whose energy could be tapped for momentum conversion.  This capacitor would carry more energy than a nuclear reactor of the same energy output.  Is that correct?

Even so, current output for a 2kw system is on the order of micro-Newton.  It would still have to be scaled up to a 1kw system putting out milli-Newton, as in GOCE.”

G/I thruster has already addressed some aspects of this question, but the local Carvin or other local power converters and energy sources only supply the catalytic power required to initialize and maintain the possibly much larger directed momentum flux from the G/I field that then back reacts onto the vehicle.  This is where the heat pump or transistor analogy comes in handy for how these G/I field engines act like momentum amplifiers that use a very small control signal, (the local input power), to control the potentially much larger momentum flux from the cosmological G/I field. 

What currently limits the maximum thrust of these G/I thrusters is the limitations of our current G/I “transistors” and just like when the bipolar junction transistor (BJT)s first came out in 1948 at Bell Labs, their electrical gains (thrust) where very small, being on the order of 2-to-10, but they improved steadily over the last half century so that the electrical gains are now measured in the thousands for single element transistors and millions when allowed to gang multiple transistors, such as in the BJT Darlington Pairs.  You can see a similar performance improvement progression in the development of the turbine power plants where Frank Whittle’s first turbojet engine prototypes only produced pounds of thrust, but now through various iterative design improvements since the 1930s such as the use of  centrifugal  compressors, staged turbine blade discs, and dual or even triple axel designs, turbofan engines are now rated at up to 100,000 lb-f thrusts.  In a like manner, we will see a migration of the M-E based field drives going from micro-Newton thrust levels up to tens of thousands of Newton per engine and beyond dependent only on their ultimate thrust gains and the development efforts applied to them.

 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/22/2009 10:44 PM
Thanks for your all's efforts to explain.  I'm still asking for a posting of Cullen's paper, so that I can review and understand the math.

About transistors.  They amplify a signal, true, but they depend on power coming from another circuit.  So, the "G/I field engines act like momentum amplifiers that use a very small control signal, (the local input power), to control the potentially much larger momentum flux from the cosmological G/I field."

I hesitate to ask this, but are you guys intending to create a "flux capacitor"  in order to capture the momentum from the G/I field?  Then all this "Carvin circuitry", for want of a better term, directs this captured and stored momentum for purposes of the demonstration satellite thrusters?

Fine, but now I have to ask the question that blazotron asked above:  How can you guys access and control the momentum flux and nobody else can?  I know, we're "free" to do so, but my efforts are stymied from lack of info, hence the repeated requests for Cullen's paper.

So:  What is it that you all are pushing against? And where is the energy source that the "Carvin circuitry" can amplify and convert into directed momentum?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/22/2009 11:23 PM
 
"I hesitate to ask this, but are you guys intending to create a "flux capacitor"  in order to capture the momentum from the G/I field?"

Not really.  We don't have a way to capture or store momentum in a capacitor.  Instead, what we do is what you can literally call a "sneaky trick" in that we use the momentum flux in fits and starts.  During each cycle, the mass will fluctuate first positive, then negative, then positive, then negative again.  Each time it's positive we push it in one direction and when it's negative we pull it in the opposite direction.  Lets take an example.

You have 2 grams of active ceramic mass, probably Barium Titanate or BaTiO3 and you fluctuate it 50% at 40 khz.  That means when it moves left and is positive, you are pushing 3 grams of mass, when it moves right you are pulling 1 gram of mass.  The net difference is 2 grams of mass and you do this twice each cycle, 40,000 times each second.

The power system only makes possible the fluctuation and the push-pull motion.  The real power into the system is the gravinertial flux that is transiently altering the mass of the ceramic.  That is the power the "GI transistor" is controlling, much as a sail controls the wind or a transistor controls a larger current flow.

Additionally, we believe that mass fluctuations can be in excess of 100% which opens a whole new can of worms.  When the fluctuation is at 100%, you are literally pulling no mass so there is no force required.   Once fluctuation goes over 100%, the mass is negative and will have negative inertia, essentially self accelerating in the direction of force upon it, rather than resisting acceleration like normal mass.  This is the area where we hope to see huge thrust efficiencies.  Jim is not working in this >100% mass fluctuation area, otherwise known as "wormhole territory" but Paul is, which explains why he was seemingly able to get such large thrusts with his experiment several years ago.  Jim's derivation does not precise this "wormhole term" which is why Jim refuses to work in wormhole territory for the time being.

If one uses the "impulse term" to extrapolate what thrust inside wormhole territory should be like, you can just extend this process above.  Lets say that you have 2 grams and fluctuate it 200%.  Now you're pushing 6 grams and pulling negative 2 grams which is the same as pushing another 2 for a net of 8 grams twice each cycle.  That would be the end of the story except that under these conditions, the "wormhole term" in the derivation suddenly comes to play and makes an additional contribution.  The derivation cannot be used to calculate this contribution since it does not precise the term.  This is why Jim won't work in wormhole territory because his theory can't yet predict what sort of thrust we should see.  On the other hand, we have others willing to jump in and experiment and even though they're experimenting without the benefit of a careful prediction, there's so much to be learned this seems worth the effort.

The chief trouble with working in wormhole territory is that if an item doesn't work, there's no way to know why that's so.  So we have these two approaches. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 04/22/2009 11:37 PM
Star-Drive:  I know all that.  I'm just suggesting that calculating Isp using mass-equivalence of energy expended is not the fairest/most credible way to compare this drive with rockets and ion thrusters, since the actual fuel mass required is far larger than the mass-equivalent of the energy expended.

I have proposed an alternative method for calculating an equivalent "Isp" solely for comparison purposes.  You wouldn't actually use this number to calculate anything else; indeed, you need to know the delta-V in order to calculate it in the first place...

JohnFornaro:  Cullen's paper, IIRC, is cited by Shawyer, not Woodward.  The two thrusters are very different, and personally I don't think Shawyer's drive is going to work (although I am willing to be proved wrong).  Cullen's paper won't help you understand Mach-effect thrusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/23/2009 12:32 PM
10/4 on that correction about Sawyer and Woodward.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/23/2009 03:36 PM
Does the paper: "MACH’S PRINCIPLE, MASS FUCTUATIONS, AND RAPID SPACETIME TRANSPORT"

by Woodward & Mahood

as published in STAIC 2000, contain all the math and apparatus description to repeat the experiment?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/23/2009 04:10 PM

I don't think there's any one paper that has everything one would need to repeat any one experiment.  If you want to do a replication of any sort, your first and best recourse is certainly to communicate with others who are involved in the work, starting with Jim Woodward.

Which experiment were you interested in, the rotator?  You won't find that in any papers though, you will find it in Jim's most recent PPT that went out last week to his mail list.  Maybe I can get permission to post that up here.  I'm sure folks would be amazed at the level of detail in it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/23/2009 06:32 PM
Actually, I also have Mahood's 1999 thesis, presented to Woodward.  I'm not going to be setting up an experiment any time soon.  I would be happy with just the math proving the theory of this kind of propulsion.

One of my earlier posts asked if there was enough info out there to repeat one of Woodward's experiments; from your reply just now, the answer is actually no.  In order to verify Woodward's results, you have to ask him for his info, which sorta makes sense.  But I would have thought the info would be posted here in order to broaden the peer review base.

In other words, although we are free to repeat the experiments, we're either on our own, or beholden to a fellow who, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, may prefer holding his cards close to his chest.  Which is also understandable.

I know you've offered Woodward's mailing list to pre-qualified individuals, and that's potentially good, even as it is more of a private mailing.  I'm looking for a bit more public transparency, which is why I ask for materials on this forum.

Also, in the above list of individuals doing similar research, which of these are independently verifying Woodward's results?

Maybe I'll eventually want to build a Warp drive, but I gotta go mow the grass first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/23/2009 07:31 PM
Look John, you're playing a semantics game and I'm not playing.

The info is all publicly available, it's just not in a single paper (especially one that is 10 years older than the rotator experiment.)  Jim is not playing his cards "close to the chest."  The situation is the precise opposite.  All the info anyone would want on how to do these experiments is easy to get.  Now if you don't read ANY of the papers, and you don't correspond with ANYONE doing the work, and you say you want public access, I have to think you're being disingenuous. 

I think it's fair at this point to ask what your skill set is.  I find it difficult to imagine someone who needs elementary explanations from a non technical person like myself, just to grasp the basics of standard power systems, is actually going to build anything.  I said all the info is available.  I didn't say the people doing the work were going to provide you with a bachelors in electrical engineering.  So what precisely is your skill set?

But in short, again, for the uncounted time: all of the information necessary to do these experiments is available to anyone who has an interest.  All you need to do is demonstrate that interest by reading the papers and communicating with those who know what they're doing.  Several of those who have done this work in the past did it based completely upon what they learned by reading Jim's papers and had no contact with Jim at all.  Personally I think that's a silly tack to take but skilled engineers and physicists can do that sort of thing and the rotator experiment is relatively cheap and easy to do since it does not require vacuum or a thrust balance.  It still requires someone who knows how to read an oscilloscope.

Can you read a scope, John?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 04/23/2009 09:50 PM
How does Shawyer get v = group velocity in his "emdrive"? The "v" is the velocity of the charge, not the wave, and is << c.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/24/2009 01:00 PM
I'm not playing a semantic game at all.  The simple answer is that yes, I'm free to verify the thinking behind the MLT hypothesis, but I'm going to have to hunt it down myself, becasue it won't all be presented here on this forum.

So that's the way it is in this field of endeavor.  It's frustrating for me, a beginner in all this, but it seems to comport witht he idea that science proceeds "one funeral at a time."  But my arm's tired from all the waving.

Anyhow, I have read two of the papers, but by your account, I haven't read "ANY" of them.  OK.  And as to corresponding with "ANYONE" doing this work, does that mean that none of them are corresponding on this thread?  Mr. Woodward is not, it would seem.  Whatever the legal meaning of public is, I thought this was a public forum.  Any access to info published here is available to the public.  Which is why I ask.  I'm not an insider.

As to the skill set, did I mention I'm a beginner?  I can read a scope, and I can program in assembler and there's a million other things I can't do or am not good at.  As to building anything, I am not; I'm looking to understand the math.  Already, Shawyer's math seems to have problems; by mikegi, blazotron, and my own reading.  I'll review what I have, Woodward and Mahood's papers.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/24/2009 03:49 PM
Here's the latest doc on the rotator experiment.  I don't think SPE-SIF has made the paper available yet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/24/2009 05:52 PM
Here's a copy of the data from 3/28 graphed in XL.  The error bars show the standard deviation of the various data sets.  Note the shift in the effect dominance point between ascending and descending rotation data sets or the low point on the graph, showing thermal contribution.  The graph clearly indicates there is a pair of anti-phase effects at the second harmonic: electrostriction which is clearly understood and in anti-phase to it (just as the math says it should be) is the proposed Mach Effect.  This data is 3 weeks old but it's the most recent to be graphed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/02/2009 09:13 PM
Here's a vid of the rotator in operation.  I have not yet been able to get it to play.  This may be because zshare is just overwhelmed.  The 13GB file had already been DLed 6 times in the few minutes between when Jim sent this out and when I tried to view it.  It could also be because my machine and ISP are somewhat bandwidth challenged and often give trouble with vids.  Also take note that the ARC Lite in the vacuum chamber is a different experiment than the rotator.  Jim is just busy pumping out the chamber for a thruster study.
---------------
Gentlefolk,

You can now watch the rotary device in operation at ZShare.  The link is:
<http://www.zshare.net/video/59506760a6754bd2/>.  I hereby make the
implicit copyright explicit.  No distribution or use for profit without
my prior consent.

The first part of the video shows the device being cycled through a run
from 0 Hz to 60 Hz and back to 0.  At the higher speeds you can hear the
whine of the drive over the vacuum pump background noise (which is
keeping the ARC Lite balance chamber pumped out).

The second part of the video shows the instrumentation displays.  On the
left are the three oscilloscopes used.  The two analog scopes show the
capacitor voltage as one trace.  It is used as a phase reference for the
other traces.  On the lower scope the other trace is the full, broad
bandpassed differential accelerometer trace.  This output is also fed
into the Picoscope as one of its two inputs (along with the capacitor
voltage).  The trace on the upper analog scope is the isolated second
harmonic (80 KHz) present in the accelerometer trace displayed on the
lower scope.  The amplitude and phase variation of this trace is the
matter of interest in this business.  The top digital scope displays the
amplitude and phase adjusted individual accelerometer outputs (and the
red trace is the difference of the yellow and blue traces).

In the lower center is an old Monsanto counter (nixie tubes!).  The dope
who designed it thought you would like to see the counts in progress, so
the display shows that rather than the previous proximate count value
while counts are taking place.

On the right is the display of the power spectra of the differential
accelerometer (blue) and capacitor voltage (red).  Normally, for
quasi-stationary measurements the "average" mode (rather than "normal")
would be used to suppress transient noise.  But the settling time in that
mode is 5 to 10 seconds, so it is not used as the changes in rotation
speed take place too quickly for the average mode to track correctly.

The run shown in the video is for 40 KHz, 0 - 60 Hz, 6 KV amplitude (the
traces on the scopes are 1 KV/volt, and the scale is 2 volt/div).  Watch
the phase and amplitude changes of the second harmonic.  The 0 Hz signal
is electrostriction.

Have fun,

Jim
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/03/2009 05:44 AM
How does Shawyer get v = group velocity in his "emdrive"? The "v" is the velocity of the charge, not the wave, and is << c.


It is a well known property of waveguides that the group velocity of light varies with the diameter of the waveguide.
see pg392 of "introduction to electrodynamics 2nd edition" by David Griffiths, published by Prentice Hall.

I still cannot come up with an other analogy for how the em drive works other than the mach thruster also discussed on this thread. Emdrive approaches the problem from the point of view of a varying velocity and mach drive (woodward drive) relies on varying mass. The end result is the same though - forward motion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/03/2009 06:06 AM


I still cannot come up with an other analogy for how the em drive works other than the mach thruster also discussed on this thread. Emdrive approaches the problem from the point of view of a varying velocity and mach drive (woodward drive) relies on varying mass. The end result is the same though - forward motion.


Actually - it may be more related to the mach effect than I first considered. If the group velocity is different at each end of the cavity then the momentum is different. The momentum term contains mass and the mach effect determines what that mass is. (we are talking photonic mass not actual rest mass here, of course) If however, in the emdrive the mass stays the same then the mach effect suggests that the distant matter in the universe would experience a velocity change instead.
That's interesting. A changed velocity here could mean a changed velocity "of the distant stars", thus allowing forward momentum of the vehicle without getting around newton's laws.
I'm going to have to look into this whole mach effect thing. I don't think it is needed as the emdrive equations conserve momentum and energy already but further investigation is always worth it to see if they are only one half of a larger story.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/03/2009 12:39 PM
The notion of "group velocity" is not intended for book-keeping momentum.  If you want to talk about the momentum of light, you have to talk about photons and they always move at c.  Group velocity has nothing to do with momentum and Shawyer's device is indeed proposing a violation of conservation of momentum.

Lots of physicists have looked at this and there's a reason Shawyer lost his funding from the British government.  His physics is wrong and his thruster has nothing in common with M-E thrusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/08/2009 02:40 AM
"And, 400 watts from a cork sized battery?  I don't have access to this technology.  Is this actually a capacitor battery, one that you charge the heck out of and then can use to power the thrusters?"

Yes, these are the new batteries from A123 that will be powering the next generation of electric vehicles like the Chevy Volt.  I picked up a test kit with 3 of these cells a year or two ago and sent it to a PhD EE friend who benched them for me.  They do indeed put out over 400 watts each and have a C rating of more than 40.  But they're batteries, not supercaps.  The barium titaniate "supercap" technology from EEStor is reported to have an even higher power density but that's not on the market yet.

That's awesome. Handheld lasers here we come!!

Quote
And BTW, yes I know GOCE doesn't have the Isp of Deep Space 1, but for a first application of a low thrust efficiency M-E thruster, we are probably looking at satellite station keeping, not robotic travel to Jupiter's icy moons.  So GECO really is the more applicable technology to compare against.  So far, the discovery phase lab experiments seem to have a huge advantage over the cutting edge-tech on GECO.

Someone tell me if I remember correctly--NASA spends $50 million annually boosting hydrazine to ISS to keep her on orbit?  If we had commercial thrusters with efficiencies like what Paul saw, we could replace all the hydrazine on ISS and save about half a billion dollars over the course of a decade.  That's just one application.


The issue of hydrazine handling and leakage alone should make the case for this (not that we can't handle hydrazine, it's just a pain in the rear and always will be). And add to that no need for a clear line of thrust and no risk of exhaust contamination of experiments... this would be an awesome system. Especially if the caps could be made to last longer (replacement every 6 months or so).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/08/2009 08:29 AM
"The issue of hydrazine handling and leakage alone should make the case for this (not that we can't handle hydrazine, it's just a pain in the rear and always will be). And add to that no need for a clear line of thrust and no risk of exhaust contamination of experiments... this would be an awesome system. Especially if the caps could be made to last longer (replacement every 6 months or so). "

There's a huge amount of utility in the fact that gravinertial thrusters don't have to be placed outside a spacecraft.  Since they have no exhaust, you can place them anywhere you please and this makes up-keep much easier.

So far as the die-off issue is concerned, we haven't had the finances to do destructive analysis of played out thrusters, but this appears to concern things like depolarization.  If that proves to be the case, then using non polarized ceramics like PMT-PT will solve the issue all at once.  It still seems very likely M-E thrusters will have no ageing issues once they go online.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/08/2009 07:32 PM
"The issue of hydrazine handling and leakage alone should make the case for this (not that we can't handle hydrazine, it's just a pain in the rear and always will be). And add to that no need for a clear line of thrust and no risk of exhaust contamination of experiments... this would be an awesome system. Especially if the caps could be made to last longer (replacement every 6 months or so). "

There's a huge amount of utility in the fact that gravinertial thrusters don't have to be placed outside a spacecraft.  Since they have no exhaust, you can place them anywhere you please and this makes up-keep much easier.

Aye, now Scotty can have a real engine room to call the captain from...

Quote

So far as the die-off issue is concerned, we haven't had the finances to do destructive analysis of played out thrusters, but this appears to concern things like depolarization.  If that proves to be the case, then using non polarized ceramics like PMT-PT will solve the issue all at once.  It still seems very likely M-E thrusters will have no ageing issues once they go online.

Ceramic capacitors are very durable, I've used them on Marx Ladder HV power supplies for years. The RTV potting breaks down first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/08/2009 09:23 PM
They are durable but we've had thrust die-off issues in the past and the ageing here is well in advance of normal ageing in normal use of these caps.  There's something going on we haven't had the opportunity to check into yet.  We do know that if you bake the caps they return for a time to their original abilities but they die off again.  So what is going on here?  These caps are not generally polarized to start.  Could the thrust be forcing the tetrahedrons off axis so that instead of a chaotic, generally unpolarized state they are polarized off axis?  We haven't even taken the opportunity to polarize these caps for a single run though, that is easy to do when the time comes.

There are other possibilities.  What if the mobile ions are quantum tunneling out of the lattice while they're fluctuated light and moving fast?  That would leave a net charge on the lattice and once again, we haven't had the time and resources to check.  The ultimate in destructive analysis is to stick a failed cap under a scanning electron microscope--easy to do if you have the funds. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/10/2009 03:56 AM
The notion of "group velocity" is not intended for book-keeping momentum.  If you want to talk about the momentum of light, you have to talk about photons and they always move at c.  Group velocity has nothing to do with momentum and Shawyer's device is indeed proposing a violation of conservation of momentum.

Lots of physicists have looked at this and there's a reason Shawyer lost his funding from the British government.  His physics is wrong and his thruster has nothing in common with M-E thrusters.

Remember in this case we are not in a true vacuum, rather we are in a waveguide. Dispersion of the wave group needs to be accounted for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity.

Shawyers device moves by recoiling from the net force at the end plates. This conserves momentum. The motion is actually in the opposite direction to the net thrust, which confirms the conservation of momentum.

(I finally found a simple description!) One really has to sit down and work thru the equations to understand it. I'd encourage everyone to do it. Persevere! The knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss it. I did so on several occasions but kept getting pulled back into it due to the fact that the math worked. Also there was that video of a test thruster actually working....
so:
The emdrive achieves motion in reaction to the net force on the end plates in an equal and opposite magnitude.

The net force exists due to the differing group velocities at each end of the waveguide.

Relativistic velocity addition is required due to the relativistic velocities involved, which implies that the photons at each end are in different reference frames.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/11/2009 01:56 PM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but group velocity is the velocity of a wavefront, or per Wiki, the modulation or envelope of a wave.  It is a velocity, but it is not a velocity of something, that is, it is not a velocity of mass.  It is also not the velocity of a signal carrying information, which is also something less than or equal to c.

Backing up to the Wiki article, the matter wave group velocity is also just a velocity, not a velocity of matter.  How does Shawyer get work done, when all he is using is a velocity on which to hang his theory?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/14/2009 01:01 AM
They are durable but we've had thrust die-off issues in the past and the ageing here is well in advance of normal ageing in normal use of these caps.  There's something going on we haven't had the opportunity to check into yet.  We do know that if you bake the caps they return for a time to their original abilities but they die off again.  So what is going on here?  These caps are not generally polarized to start.  Could the thrust be forcing the tetrahedrons off axis so that instead of a chaotic, generally unpolarized state they are polarized off axis?  We haven't even taken the opportunity to polarize these caps for a single run though, that is easy to do when the time comes.

There are other possibilities.  What if the mobile ions are quantum tunneling out of the lattice while they're fluctuated light and moving fast?  That would leave a net charge on the lattice and once again, we haven't had the time and resources to check.  The ultimate in destructive analysis is to stick a failed cap under a scanning electron microscope--easy to do if you have the funds. . .

I would venture that the B-field is putting added stress on the cap. Rank speculation on my uneducated part follows.

 Perhaps the M-E fluctuation field also screws things up on a very local scale. Such as nano-scale chaotic gravitational fluctuations within the cap might be stressing the structure. Especially if your ions are moving at "wormhole term" acceleration changes. All sorts of weird crud could be spilling out in individual locations. Most other experiments shoving ions around deal with amorphous plasmas, so perhaps this is something that otherwise wouldn't show up here?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 01:41 AM
My own guess is that this thrust die-off is a consequence of the tetrahedrons being forced off axis and essentially polarizing orthogonal to the thrust axis.  The caps start off chaotic--no polarization--and when played out ceramics are baked, they regain their thrust signature.  Baking would have the effect of bringing the ceramic back to a chaotic, unpolarized state.  What we need to do are studies where we're repolarizing the ceramic.  This is easy to do.  We can even do it without removing it from the thrust balance by heating it above Curie (by running it), leaving some HV DC on it and letting it cool.

Since these thrusters make use of the piezoelectric effect, and that effect is greatest when BaTiO3 is in it's cubic, unpolarized phase (above Curie), running the caps hot has a lot to recommend it as well.  That was where Paul March got the greatest results in his MLT tests, above Curie.

Just so much to do and so little time, and Jim leaves for his 3 month break at the end of this week.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/14/2009 06:27 AM
From all I read the conclusion I make is that with electromagnetism you can affect space-time.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 12:39 PM
The only way I know how to do this is by using Mach Effects according to Jim Woodward's theory.  It's true that M-E does affect space-time by kinking the gravinertial field that connects all matter in the universe.  However, rather than call it "space-time" it's probably best to precise that it affects the gravinertial field within space-time.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/14/2009 12:57 PM
I have been studying Mahood's thesis on and off over the last several weeks.  He admits that the ORNL refutation of his experimental work has some validity, but insists that further experimentation will validate his results.  Could someone post a more recent PDF of Mahood and Woodward's math and experimental work?

Mahood's math is gnarly for me, but I'm working thru the equations in his thesis appendix one by one, in case anybody is wondering, or even cares.

However, thrust efficiency is a major stumbling block, if the current (1999) readings are taken as accurate.  If my tentative suggestion of newtons per watt as a unit of measure is acceptable, the power supply for such a thruster would be distressingly large for the amount of thrust generated.

In addition, he is ignoring local gravitational effects, such as the planet Earth, in favor of distant gravitational effects, which are several orders of magnitude smaller. I don't understand the derivation of his justification for this.

Further, the thesis offers no insight as to what I understand to be the tapping of some other energy source to provide momentum.  This has to do mass fluctuations in excess of 100%, so there seems to be more recent math which I would appreciate reviewing.

Finally,  the mass fluctuations of the Ti ion appear to take place at non-relativistic speeds.  What is the math behind this assertion?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 01:14 PM
John, I appreciate all these questions but the only way to get the answers is to go on the two web sites provided and read the papers.

Try to remember, Tom Mayhood was Jim's graduate student.  Tom is an engineer, not a physicist.  The math with regards M-E theory is Jim's math.  That's the gnarley stuff because it's field theory.  If you can't do general relativity, you're not going to do this part of the math.  But you don't have to. It was all peer-reviewed more than a decade ago and came through shining.

In any event, there are lots of more recent papers.  You're reading one of the oldest.  If you want to understand pure theory better, read the papers by Jim from a decade ago.  If you want to understamnd the engineering behind the most recent tests, you'll want to ask for copies of Jim's STAIF papers the last few years.  For copyright reasons Jim has no control over, the STAIF papers cannot be posted online but I'm sure Paul March can send you some privately if you like.  But truly, there are at least a dozen papers posted online that you could go through first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 01:22 PM
You can find some of the papers here:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html

. . .Unfortunately, I am leaving in a few days for a 3 week stint at a caving expedition to Mexico (http://www.usdct.org if you are interested--and no I am not insane enough to dive in-cave), so it will be a while before I can sit down and really absorb them. 


Anyone know if Blazotron made it out of the cave alive?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/14/2009 02:28 PM
The papers published are exactly the papers I have read. Not only are they a decade old, they are also a decade old.  Your suggestion above is confusing to me.  It seems to suggest that the... well, I don't know exactly what it suggests.

Anyhow, I have contacted Mr. Woodward.  PM me with Paul March's email, if you don't mind.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/14/2009 03:55 PM
What about the Onion Drive? I saw it's theory in the aiaa presentation 2008.

http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/Adv%20Space%20Propulsion%20for%20Interstellar%20Travel%20-%20GMeholic%20042408.pdf

Slide 34/55


Is it equal to the MLT thruster?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 07:44 PM
No.  It's junk science.  I was just asked my analysis of this yesterday.  Since my response, half a dozen physicists have responded about how the physics doesn't work either.  It's all junk.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/14/2009 07:52 PM
Sith:

The nuclear bomb based Project Orion propulsion approach had plenty power, but its Isp was "only" around 10,000 seconds.  The worst MLT on the other hand has an equivalent Isp measured in the tera-seconds and it works rapidly up from there as the delivered thrust increases. 

John F.:

You can contact me me thru the NSF "My-messages" e-mail pull down tab.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/14/2009 07:54 PM
GI Thruster:

What is junk science?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 08:46 PM
Star-Drive, the "Onion Drive" (not "Orion") is sci-fi UFO myth junk science.  It was shredded on one of Greg Meholic's distributions yesterday by half a dozen physicists including Jim.  Someone recast the garbage from years ago in new form and is pretending it's real science when it's not.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/14/2009 09:00 PM
And when I looked later the Onion Drive's home page
http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/oniondrive/onion.htm
on the botton of the site was written something about the Schauberger's "Repulsine" and the Searl levity disc. Both of the crafts - are they a deception? Somewhere I've read that the IGV has been tested by some Air Force guys back in the 1970s. Was it realy airborne?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/14/2009 09:30 PM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but group velocity is the velocity of a wavefront, or per Wiki, the modulation or envelope of a wave.  It is a velocity, but it is not a velocity of something, that is, it is not a velocity of mass.  It is also not the velocity of a signal carrying information, which is also something less than or equal to c.

Backing up to the Wiki article, the matter wave group velocity is also just a velocity, not a velocity of matter.  How does Shawyer get work done, when all he is using is a velocity on which to hang his theory?

The velocity affects the momentum felt at the end caps. The waveguide essentially squeezes the wave group, stretching it out, so that it simply take longer to complete it's interaction with the end cap at one end than the other. This changes the actual momentum imparted upon the cap. One end has a shorter wavegroup, the other has a longer wavegroup (though the frequency is the same). Thus the momentum difference.

One thing I am struggling with is the time causality of the recoil reaction of the engine.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 09:41 PM
And when I looked later the Onion Drive's home page
http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/oniondrive/onion.htm
on the botton of the site was written something about the Schauberger's "Repulsine" and the Searl levity disc. Both of the crafts - are they a deception? Somewhere I've read that the IGV has been tested by some Air Force guys back in the 1970s. Was it realy airborne?

Scahauberger was made famous by Nick Cook's "Hunt for Zero Point" and Searl has been running a con for more years than anyone can count.  He's even been locked up for it in the past.  It's all garbage.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/14/2009 10:08 PM
Ok, now let's get back to the real science.


The MLT accelerates constantly at 1 g. It nearly equals the 'sublight' engines of Enterprise. But what about rapid accelerations? I guess in future it can be upgraded with more sophisticated tech in order to make quick jumps without crush the crew. Like inertial dampers.

(http://www.orbitalvector.com/FTL/Warp%20Drives/Warp.jpg)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 11:57 PM
Sith, given any particular amount of force generated by any particular MLT or UFG, when you divide that force by the mass of the spacecraft, you will get the acceleration.  1 gee acceleration is enough to cause something to float.  You need more force/mass to get it to climb out of the Earth's gravity well.

You're confusing Paul March's illustration of the "one gee solution" where he was showing what spacecraft can do if they can continuously accelerate at one Earth gee, with what we can currently do.  We're not generating anything like that amount of thrust.

Right now, all M-E thrusters have a low enough thrust that when you divide them by their weight, they cannot float.  And that doesn't include the rest of a spacecraft.  So, you're a little ahead of us all here but I do appreciate your enthusiasm.  :-)

F=MA   ::waves hand::
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/15/2009 03:05 AM
Sith:

The nuclear bomb based Project Orion propulsion approach had plenty power, but its Isp was "only" around 10,000 seconds.  The worst MLT on the other hand has an equivalent Isp measured in the tera-seconds and it works rapidly up from there as the delivered thrust increases. 


THey said "onion" not "orion"
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/15/2009 04:07 AM
I have been studying Mahood's thesis on and off over the last several weeks.  He admits that the ORNL refutation of his experimental work has some validity, but insists that further experimentation will validate his results.  Could someone post a more recent PDF of Mahood and Woodward's math and experimental work?

Mahood's math is gnarly for me, but I'm working thru the equations in his thesis appendix one by one, in case anybody is wondering, or even cares.

However, thrust efficiency is a major stumbling block, if the current (1999) readings are taken as accurate.  If my tentative suggestion of newtons per watt as a unit of measure is acceptable, the power supply for such a thruster would be distressingly large for the amount of thrust generated.

I haven't read that paper so I can't really comment. However the thrust efficiency is really a function of how cleanly you can shove the masses around. If you had a Bose-Einstein Condensate or some kind of singularity, or a bunch of Higgs bosons, then it might be much easier. But we're doing with squishy ordinary matter through conventional electrical systems.

Quote
In addition, he is ignoring local gravitational effects, such as the planet Earth, in favor of distant gravitational effects, which are several orders of magnitude smaller. I don't understand the derivation of his justification for this.

This may help (somewhat):
http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/mach.pr.html

Mach treats inertia as a result of the overall G-field created by all mass in the universe. I don't know about the tensor treatment he uses, but basically I would say it equates to gravitational potential. What we see as gravitational potential here on Earth is merely one-sided inertia. I need 5kJ to raise object x by 5m. With inertia, it equates to a relative velocity since in a non-Euclidean universe all vectors and distances sum to zero. Somebody hit me if I'm off track here.

Quote
Further, the thesis offers no insight as to what I understand to be the tapping of some other energy source to provide momentum.  This has to do mass fluctuations in excess of 100%, so there seems to be more recent math which I would appreciate reviewing.

The resultant energy is the relative change in velocity of the rest of the Universe. Just like a planet slows marginally from a gravity slingshot of a probe.

Quote
Finally,  the mass fluctuations of the Ti ion appear to take place at non-relativistic speeds.  What is the math behind this assertion?

There is no real mass fluctuation. The G-field simply hasn't reacted to the fact that the object has moved. Pointing to an empty array, to use a programming analogy. So the forces pointing back to where the object was are now acting on empty space. Kind of like steering for the last shot, in naval terms.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/15/2009 04:08 AM
What about the Onion Drive? I saw it's theory in the aiaa presentation 2008.

http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/Adv%20Space%20Propulsion%20for%20Interstellar%20Travel%20-%20GMeholic%20042408.pdf

Slide 34/55


Is it equal to the MLT thruster?

Like Camelot, it is a silly place. Let us not go there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/15/2009 06:41 AM
About the MLT drive - for example it works several days in space, at 1g, without stopping, but suddenly it stops. Would the craft "drop out of warp" or the speed will remain the same to the point it stoped?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Pittsburgh on 05/15/2009 06:59 AM
About the MLT drive - for example it works several days in space, at 1g, without stopping, but suddenly it stops. Would the craft "drop out of warp" or the speed will remain the same to the point it stoped?

Go back a few posts and take a look at F=ma.

If the drive stops working, no more acceleration.  By definition, that means that it will continue on at the same speed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/15/2009 03:35 PM
And 'red matter'???
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/15/2009 09:31 PM
What about the Onion Drive? I saw it's theory in the aiaa presentation 2008.

http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/Adv%20Space%20Propulsion%20for%20Interstellar%20Travel%20-%20GMeholic%20042408.pdf

Slide 34/55


Is it equal to the MLT thruster?

Folks:

Sorry about seeing "Orion" when you were all talking about the "Onion" drive.  It looks like I need to get my reading glasses changed again. :(

Next comment is on the issue on if the MLT could be used to implement a warp drive instead of "just" a G/I based impulse drive only capabile of sublight speeds.  The answer to this question is sitting in the Mach-Effect (M-E) equation's wormhole term when it is driven by the impulse term into its always negative mass mode as experimentally demonstrated in Woodward's 2002 IIT paper, with the results appended below. 

Now it has been shown by several researchers like Dr. Richard Obousy (Baylor U.) and Dr. Harold White (Rice U.) that all one needs to create a Alcubierre warp bubble around the starship in a GRT/string theory based universe is a negative mass energy differential, (An average matter density less than the rest mass of the dielectric in question.), instead of a less than zero gravinertial mass concentration previously thought to be required, but assembled in the appropriate geometric configuration like a torus .  This greater than zero, but less than the rest mass of the M-E excited dielectric state has already been demonstrated by Woodward in a PZT stack and increasing this into a toroidal configuration is almost trivial.  However maintaining a toroidal dielectric ring at a particular lower delta mass set point will still be a bit of a control engineering challenge.

A simple experiment to verify this conjecture is to shoot a laser down a path that is offset from the center bore of an MLT tours and note whether the laser beam is deflected as it passes through the asymmetric spacetime distortions created by the MLT when it’s driven into a continuous reduced mass state like those found in Woodard’s 2002 experimental results.  If it does, we can then start planning on how we can implement a warp drive to any-where and/or any-when in this universe or any of the other universes in the string theory's multi-verse.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 05/15/2009 10:04 PM
and how much would this experiment cost?

also, this thread is making my head hurt
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/15/2009 10:19 PM
If we had to come up from scratch, probably around ~$10k or for parts.  The tricky thing in this experiment is designing the control loop for maintaining the delta mass reduction in the PZT ring as this high-k dielectric heats up and expands.  We would also have to develop a cooling loop design to keep it from going over its Curie temperature of ~350C. 

BTW, I just talked with Dr. White and he reminded me that what he had in mind for this experiment was shooting the laser down the bore scope of the PZT ring that forms a leg of a Michelson/Morley (M&M) interferometer.  What his prediction indicate is that the phase of the laser light passing through the M-E induced spacetime distortion in the PZT ring would change in reference to the laser beam passing through the flat spacetime outside the PZT ring in the same way as the moving aether was suppose to affect the light beam in the M&M tests.   

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

BTW, sorry about your head hurting, but if this stuff was easy, it would have been accomplished already. :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/15/2009 10:27 PM
You don't need an interferometer and you don't have to cool the PZT.  There's no reason to try to run in stasis unless you want to measure the distortion as opposed to simply confirm it.  The simplified version, confirmation alone;  any national lab could do this experiment in a single day with items on hand.

The real question is, even given a space-time disturbance, would a laser beam emerge in such a way as to clearly show the disturbance?  I'm not sure that's a given--just as the ZPF folks say about M-M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 05/15/2009 10:31 PM
So for 10k, we might be able to determine if M-E travel works?

that's an easy decision to make for funding...
How come it hasn't received funding as of yet to perform?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/15/2009 10:49 PM
What his prediction indicate is that the phase of the laser light passing through the M-E induced spacetime distortion in the PZT ring would change in reference to the laser beam passing through the flat spacetime outside the PZT ring in the same way as the moving aether was suppose to affect the light beam in the M&M tests.   

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
The aether is known today in the quantum mechanics as quantum foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

And what if the same M&M experiment is conducted now, but as a rotational version (using M-E distortions) instead of the old linear one? Would then be any aether detected? Is that his idea?

-=-=-=-=-=

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam)
Too much energy required...

(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/274/powerx.jpg)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/16/2009 03:15 PM
"And what if the same M&M experiment is conducted now, but as a rotational version (using M-E distortions) instead of the old linear one? Would then be any aether detected? Is that his idea?"

No.  He's saying that given MLT's and UFG's distort space-time when they create gravinertial flux, one ought to be able to observe this with a laser.  It's got very little to do with M-M except that the two experiments have some protocols in common.

If one were to try to run in stasis over an extended period of time then running in vacuum would be advisable.  That would escalate the costs some.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/17/2009 12:45 AM
What his prediction indicate is that the phase of the laser light passing through the M-E induced spacetime distortion in the PZT ring would change in reference to the laser beam passing through the flat spacetime outside the PZT ring in the same way as the moving aether was suppose to affect the light beam in the M&M tests.   

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
The aether is known today in the quantum mechanics as quantum foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

And what if the same M&M experiment is conducted now, but as a rotational version (using M-E distortions) instead of the old linear one? Would then be any aether detected? Is that his idea?

-=-=-=-=-=

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam)
Too much energy required...

(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/274/powerx.jpg)

Subsequent papers have reduced that requirement, but it's still tremendous. The biggest problem is causal disconnect with the surroundings. - In other words, the metric distortion must travel faster than the speed of light. This can be overcome with a "warp corridor" set up at sublight speeds but then there are also causality problems that way.

If the Mach theory is correct, then we don't have to worry about causal disconnect as the metric bubble distortion propagates faster than light anyway (or forwards and backwards in time which amounts to the same thing).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/17/2009 12:51 AM
I should mention that I proposed this same thing three years ago (which Sonny was copied to) but there was no agreement whether the laser wouldn't dislocate in one direction upon entering the distortion, and then relocate upon exiting the distortion.  This is the same problem we have with the M-M experiment as described by ZPF folks.

I don't see it leading to an unassailable conclusion.

In any case, aiming the beam down the center of the distortion is the wrong way to go.  You need to go off normal to get evidence of a distortion.

And no.  According to Dr. Woodward's theory, and all GR theorists; all gravitic consequences propagate at c.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/17/2009 01:34 AM
Quote
And no.  According to Dr. Woodward's theory, and all GR theorists; all gravitic consequences propagate at c.

Well then, no warp drive. Unless the metric distortion propagates faster than c, it will be a sub-light warp drive only...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/17/2009 02:50 AM
You're confusing the divergent facts here.  Matter cannot move past c through space-time.  Space-time can move at any arbitrarily high speed through space-time.  That's what "warp" is all about!   :-)  I guess I shouldn't use the term "gravitic consequences."  That is misleading and of course, you are correct.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/17/2009 02:32 PM
All we have to do is warp space-time....

Arrrgh.

All we have to do is launch a chemical rocket to the Moon.  Sorry, had to vent.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/18/2009 10:36 PM
Sorry I missed some of your questions, John.  I hope Paul was able to answer your more technical ones.  As to this:

"Finally,  the mass fluctuations of the Ti ion appear to take place at non-relativistic speeds.  What is the math behind this assertion?"

The forces in MLT's and UFG's to date do not generate relativistic speeds in the Titanium ions.  If you look at the math you'll see this.  But more importantly, the fluctuation doesn't occur in the Ti ion.  It occurs in the squishy bonds between the Ti ion and its lattice.  This is why we finally realized after 2 years study on the MLT that it won't perform as hoped (though it does perform) because we're not accelerating the entire lattice with an MLT.  We need "bulk acceleration" which is why Jim moved from MLT research, to the rotator research and will be headed back to UFG research in the Fall.  The UFG provides bulk acceleration and the past UFG results were much better than the MLT research results from Fullerton.  Paul March's MLT experiments do need to be considered separately since he was working inside wormhole territory.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/19/2009 04:16 AM
GI-Thruster:

"But more importantly, the fluctuation doesn't occur in the Ti ion.  It occurs in the squishy bonds between the Ti ion and its lattice.  This is why we finally realized after 2 years study on the MLT that it won't perform as hoped (though it does perform) because we're not accelerating the entire lattice with an MLT."

Come again?  The NET vxB forces do bulk accelerate the cap rings in question because the vxB force accelerate both the positive and negative ions in the dielectric in the same direction.  However, their acceleration levels at the power levels and frequency used by Woodward yields bulk accelerations levels on the order of less than 1.0 gee, whereas it appears what's needed for robust thrust outputs is bulk accelerations on the order of hundreds if not thousands of gees.  Going to higher power levels and/or higher frequencies can help generate those bulk acceleration levels in the MLTs.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/19/2009 03:10 PM
Star-Drive, agreed.  I was speaking only of research outside wormhole territory.  Obviously, it's easier to get the necessary accelerations working at higher frequency.  I'm all for that.  :-)  I'm just saying, given Jim's commitment to avoid wormhole territory, the UFG makes more sense as it's more prone to create these accelerations in the kHz range.  (Though personally, I'd sure like to see Jim run the 200 kHz MLT's at 200 kHz.  Who knows what we might learn?)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 05/20/2009 05:19 AM
<snip>
In blazotron’s analysis of the theory paper, he states: “Then [Shawyer] states, completely without support, that the force imparted by a wave with group velocity vg is 2nhfA*(vg/c).  Nowhere in the text is it explained why we should be using the group velocity of the wave to calculate force.”  I think blazeotron is somewhat incorrect in stating where in the text is this explained.  The author alludes to:

CULLEN A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’ IEE proceedings Vol 99 Part IV 1952

as explaining where he gets the above derivation.  But this is not an actual explanation, so semantically I guess, blazotron is right!

Please post Cullen’s paper on this forum.  A simple web search will not provide this paper online.

My impression was that the reference to that paper was in regards to the derivation of the radiation pressure.  Looking at it again, it seems a little ambiguous to me which he is referring to.  That article is hard to get, but I put a request in to the library here to pull the journals from the remote storage they are located in now.  Hopefully I will have them to post before I leave for the expedition.

Well I ran out of time to scan and post these before I left, but now that I am back, here they are.  Thanks to John Fornaro for the PDF version of the images I supplied.

[This post has been edited to replace the images with the new PDF, and the following two posts (which contained additional pages of images) have been deleted as everything is now contained in this post.]
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 05/20/2009 02:34 PM
More on Shawyer:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf

Note how Shawyer's "Theory" original paper:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf

Differs from the "Theory" paper now on his website:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/20/2009 04:22 PM
Interesting to see the variations in the two versions of Shawyer's theory.  The refutation paper doesn't use much math, but I think it is correct graphically.  It basically confirms what we know to be true:  a truncated conical wastebasket, closed at each end, filled with bouncing cannonballs will not move anywhere, unless the cannonballs somehow reduce their mass consistently in one direction.

On the other hand, I don't care for the dismissive language of the refutation.  I like the Wiki idea of writing in neutral.

Having gone thru Cullen's paper quickly, on page 102, is an equation which closely resembles the derivation that Shawyer mentions in his theory paper, but it is not exactly replicated in Shawyer's work.  I haven't yet figured out what steps in this equation are the ones that Shawyer has omitted, but there is another thing.  Cullen is measuring microwave power;  it is still not at all clear how Shawyer relates group velocity of a wave front with the velocity of an accelerating mass in the F-ma equation.

Edited 05-22-09:  correct pagination of citations not important.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/20/2009 04:32 PM
Anything new in the Tachyon theory? Any recent advancement?


More on Shawyer:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf
This is from 2006. It's old!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 05/20/2009 05:32 PM
For a microwave cavity, the wavelength in free space over the group wavelength is equal to the group velocity over the free space velocity (Vg/C). Plug that into Cullen's eq 15 and you get Shawyer's force equation.

About the shawyerfraud.pdf being "old", if you try to say that 2+2=6 and I rebut that 2+2=4, I'm using an explanation that's thousands of years old. Is it invalid???

Regardless, Newton will win in the end. This contraption will fail to produce any results.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 05/20/2009 05:48 PM
My impression upon studying the paper, having read the previous rebuttal and noted how Shawyer had changed his "theory paper," is that he dug for some more complicated explanation that is harder to decipher where he went wrong.  When it became obvious that his old explanation of pressures on differing end plate areas was causing a new force was completely garbage, he obfuscated the issue with waveguides, relativity, and a reference to a paper that is damned near impossible to get.  I am not an expert in the field, but I feel pretty sure that the issue is still there, just hidden better now, and that, as mikegi says, Newton will eventually win.  I believe he has taken an equation out of context in his derivation.  Hopefully I will have time to pin it down and get back in the near future with more.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/20/2009 05:56 PM
I've said about all I want to with regards Shawyer but I should mention again that Dr. Harold White at JSC has an alternate explanation of why the Shawyer thruster ought to produce thrust.  It's based upon ZPF theory of which I am no proponent but I think it's just being fair to say that if the thruster did produce thrust, this would in no way verify Shawyer's maths.  He'd still be just as wrong.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/20/2009 07:51 PM
Having these slightly different versions of papers is confusing to me.  I don't quite have the math skills to properly asses all the jumps in Shawyer's equations.  Plus, which one do you believe?

Arrgh.

The site:
http://www.rexresearch.com/shawyer/shawyer.htm
has a bit more info on Shawyer, including a reference to the fraud paper mentioned above:

Shawyer's response:
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/20/2009 08:45 PM
Arrgg.  Hit the wrong button.

Shawyer's response:

"The momentum exchange is between the electromagnetic wave and the engine, which is attached to the spacecraft. As the engine accelerates, momentum is lost by the electromagnetic wave and gained by the spacecraft, thus satisfying the conservation of momentum. In this process, energy is lost within the resonator, thus satisfying the conservation of energy.

"The emdrive concept is clearly difficult to comprehend without a rigorous study of the theory paper, which is available via emdrive.com or the New Scientist website. This paper, which has been subjected to a long and detailed review process by industry and government experts, derives two equations: the static thrust equation and the dynamic thrust equation.

"The law of the conservation of momentum is the basis of the static thrust equation, the law of the conservation of energy is the basis of the dynamic thrust equation. Provided these two fundamental laws of physics are satisfied, there is no reason why the forces inside the resonator should sum to zero.

"The equations used to calculate the guide wavelengths in the static thrust equation are very non-linear. This is exploited in the design of the resonator to maximise the ratio of end plate forces, while minimising the axial component of the side wall force. This results in a net force that produces motion in accordance with Newton’s laws."

...somehow doesn't seem convicing.

Then, someone named Penny Gruber has a fairly recent (2008) comment:

"Penny Gruber ( 20:23, 29 September 2008 (PDT) --  AFAIK COM has to apply in any inertial frame of reference. Assuming that the microwave cavity is well sealed as it must be for the high Q's Shawyer's system needs, then no microwaves escape. The magnetron, the waveguide to the cavity, the cavity and all the waves that bounce around inside of it are intrinsically in the same frame of reference, with no ejected mass or energy other than heating from the dielectric and conduction losses of the cavity materials. The thruster ejects nothing and so by COM cannot experience any accelerating force in an external FOR."

Then there's  a bunch of G.B. patents listed.  I don't think a patent really "proves" any science.  It just proves that you were the first person to describe a device.  Whether it works or not is up to the patentee to prove.

The Wiki discussion under the "EmDrive" heading nominates the article for deletion in 2006, but the discussion gained no consensus.  BTW, for Wiki to think that "truth" is determined by consensus is incorrect, but that's really a tirade for another thread.

The Wiki discussion, however, makes a number of arguments from authority, paricularly the "New Scientist" magazine.  One of the objectors raises the issue where I lost Shawyer:  he interchanges the v of a particle with the vg of a group velocity.  One of the editors compares Shawyer's device with a Mexican jumping bean!  One of the editors offers this site:

http://www.rocketeers.co.uk/?q=node/330

where Shawyer makes a demonstration.  The "New Scientist" article apparently refers to a demonstration of the device, but I haven't seen the video.  There's a reference to the biefield Brown effect, which I know nothing about, but which the editor thinks it has to do with the EmDrive.  Apparently there's some research being done at Northwestern Polytechnical University by a fella named Yang Juan.  The last editor to address the subject was in September 2008, and the first was in October of 2006.

The Wiki article is noted as a "Class-C article of low importance."

If I tagged it correctly, this is a video of the EmDrive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs

Whew.  That was exciting.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/20/2009 09:24 PM
Discuss EmDrive here pls.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14423.0

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/20/2009 09:43 PM
". . .There's a reference to the biefield Brown effect, which I know nothing about. . ."

It's a bad joke.  An inefficient ion thruster that does not work as reported.  Easiest way to tell is put it in a box.  The ions accelerated by the potential difference in the design can't get out of the box and the thruster doesn't work at all.  Was shown not to work many years ago.  You can ignore it as junk science.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/20/2009 11:15 PM
". . .There's a reference to the biefield Brown effect, which I know nothing about. . ."

It's a bad joke.  An inefficient ion thruster that does not work as reported.  Easiest way to tell is put it in a box.  The ions accelerated by the potential difference in the design can't get out of the box and the thruster doesn't work at all.  Was shown not to work many years ago.  You can ignore it as junk science.
I don't wanna talk about TT Brown, but this video is interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp4hygoD3RU&feature=channel_page


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/21/2009 12:40 PM
The EmDrive is a propellantless propulsion scheme cooked up by Shawyer, and was introduced on this thread some time ago.  There is a bit of chatter here about the math for this theory from about a month ago, and I guess, we're trying to settle the issue to the extent that we can.  I got sidetracked yesterday trying to see how many other people are studying the work of Shawyer, thought I'd post a few of my findings.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/22/2009 06:07 AM
G/I, Star-Drive,

Instead of using H2 fuel cells for the MLT drive, could it be done with simple Lithium-ion batteries??
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/22/2009 08:03 PM
Any electrical source can be used to drive an MLT or UFG.  The reason Paul chose GM fuel cells for his WarpStar illustration is that for that application, flying to the Moon and back on a single charge; batteries do not have a high enough energy density.  Fission would not work in such a small craft.  We're still waiting on Fusion.  BLP reactors are still under investigation though, it appears using them instead of a fuel cell would give a WarpStar an exponential extension in range, perhaps enough for travel to Mars.

Given a 1 N/W M-E thruster like what is the baseline assumption for the WarpStar, one might fly to LEO on batteries but not much further and probably have to return hypersonic with wings and tiles.  We talked about this when he was writing the paper but I don't remember all the details.  The key thing to get from this though is that each of these options for storing or generating electrical power have different energy densities, meaning a set amount of energy/mass; so not all of them can accomplish the same things.  Even the best, most cutting edge batteries cannot fly a 1 N/W WarpStar to the Moon and back.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/23/2009 08:04 PM
Any electrical source can be used to drive an MLT or UFG.  The reason Paul chose GM fuel cells for his WarpStar illustration is that for that application, flying to the Moon and back on a single charge; batteries do not have a high enough energy density.  Fission would not work in such a small craft.  We're still waiting on Fusion.  BLP reactors are still under investigation though, it appears using them instead of a fuel cell would give a WarpStar an exponential extension in range, perhaps enough for travel to Mars.

Given a 1 N/W M-E thruster like what is the baseline assumption for the WarpStar, one might fly to LEO on batteries but not much further and probably have to return hypersonic with wings and tiles.  We talked about this when he was writing the paper but I don't remember all the details.  The key thing to get from this though is that each of these options for storing or generating electrical power have different energy densities, meaning a set amount of energy/mass; so not all of them can accomplish the same things.  Even the best, most cutting edge batteries cannot fly a 1 N/W WarpStar to the Moon and back.

G/I Thruster & Sith:

The Li-ion battery case for WarpStar-I design is given in the attached slide.  As you will note, assuming the highest ~200 W-hr/kg specific energy density for Li-ion cells, and 1.0 N/W MLTs, we can easily go from the ground, up to geosynchronous orbit, and then back to the ground on one charge even with the final WarpStar-I’s mass of 26,500 kg.  However, the Moon mission doesn’t quite make it using even this high end Li-ion energy density.  You would have to use the still unproven Li-Sulphur batteries or EEStor’s Cap-Battery with their promises of 400-to-600 W-hr/kg energy density to make it to the Moon and back, and your energy reserves would be reduced as compared to the LOX/hydrogen fuel cell’s system energy density of ~1.0 kW/kg.  In other words, the flight to the Moon and back would be doable with the ~500 W-hr/kg Li-S or EEStor batteries, but we would just have to be a lot more vehicle mass conscious than we would when using fuel cells with the payback being lower production and operational costs.

See: http://www.sionpower.com/technology.html
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/23/2009 09:05 PM
From this thread it is beginning to sound like the propellant depots will have to sell  batteries.  Although swap and recharge may work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 05/23/2009 09:35 PM
Pff.  If you can go to Earth escape with less than a quarter of the available battery power, you can darn well go to the moon.  Just not without coasting for a couple of days.

Certainly the high-thrust >1g solution makes better copy...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/23/2009 09:47 PM
Yes well, that's my bad.  ;-)  I convinced Paul to pursue the 1 gee solution, meaning constant acceleration from start to finish; because this is part of the paradigm change one is looking at when one looks at electric spacecraft.  Boost and glide is much of what makes space travel not quick and not convenient.  4 days instead of 4 hours.  And after all, the 1 N/W figure though seemingly sensible is somewhat arbitrary.  The point in the WarpStar illustration was not to say "hey look what we can do!" so much as to say "hey look at what space travel could be like!"  I fought for the "safe, quick, convenient, economical" qualification because that's what I believe is necessary for a "golden age of human spaceflight."

But you're right of course.  One could fly from Earth to the Moon and back with 1 N/M MLT's and far less available energy if one were willing to boost and glide.  Then again, one can get around town on a bike with less energy that way.  What do commuter bike riders choose to do?  They pedal all the time because that's quick and convenient.

Paul's WarpStar paper is full of these sorts of practicalities.  For instance, you'll find the notion designs around going fast in space and slow in atmo.  No need for hypersonic re-entries and these cause all sorts of maintenance issues.

This is all simple practicality, modeling future spaceflight to operate much like modern day air travel.  That is after all what works safe, quick, convenient and economical.

Have you read Paul's paper?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 05/23/2009 10:33 PM
I have not read the paper.  (Or have I?  Okay, I have not read the paper recently.)  I'm no fan of coasting, but Star-Drive seemed to be giving people the impression that the moon trip wasn't possible at all with batteries, and it is.

Batteries.  To the moon.  That's almost as much of a paradigm shift as the fuel-cell-powered 4-hour high-thrust trajectory.

Almost.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/24/2009 12:41 AM
Personally I'd rather see batteries or better, caps.  If you can recharge a spacecraft in a few minutes hooked to some sort of generator, then you have added a whole new level of utility.  Imagine robotic MLT freighters flying cargo to LEO round trip in a couple hours, recharging and flying again, constant transport.  If you're just moving mass, you can fly at very high gee's.

We also talked about fission or fusion powered craft for transport to places like Titan.  If you build something like a Skycrane, that has exterior carriage and can fly a large payload out at 1-2 gees, then return at 10+ gees, you cut the down time, the time the system is not producing to a small fraction.  Dispatchers of all sorts try to do this by managing return trips but they don't generally get to have a truck, taxi or bus make a return trip in 1/10 the time.  All these sorts of things go to what can make a future system economical.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/24/2009 03:28 AM
Providing it is out of sight you can have a nuclear reactor on the ground to recharge your rocket.  In space solar power can recharge the capacitors until about the asteroid belt.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/26/2009 05:45 PM
I have not read the paper.  (Or have I?  Okay, I have not read the paper recently.)  I'm no fan of coasting, but Star-Drive seemed to be giving people the impression that the moon trip wasn't possible at all with batteries, and it is.

Batteries.  To the moon.  That's almost as much of a paradigm shift as the fuel-cell-powered 4-hour high-thrust trajectory.

Almost.

93143:

Sorry for making you think that it was impossible.  Yes, with 1.0 N/W G/I thrusters this notional WarpStar-I vehicle design could make it to the Moon and back using only Li-ion batteries.  However, to do so you would have to reduce your average acceleration levels from 1.0 gee down to 1/5 gee to maintain the mission energy reserves assumed in the Warpstar-1 paper.  Of course you could also do the burn and coast approach like rockets use, but why bother?  I like my coffee to stay put when I put it down on the dashboard.  :)

BTW, find attached the WaprStar-1 paper in question and my latest experimental MLT-2009 test article at approximately it's 85% completion point reached over the weekend.  I hope to be testing it by the end of next month.  Predicted thrust levels for this ~175 gram test article using Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation is approximately 52.0 Newton with 100W of input power at 146 MHz, which should generate a cap-ring voltage of ~5,500V-p if my RF loss models are correct.  Using Dr. White's QVF/MHD model for this same test article, under the same operating conditions, the thrust prediction is only ~0.5 gram force (~5.0 milli-Newton).  It should be an interesting test either way...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/26/2009 06:53 PM
Star-Drive, that looks awesome!!! (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

What are these flat coils on the top?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/26/2009 10:09 PM
Sith:

The flat copper coils on top of the white cylinder are eight, one-turn coils clocked every 45 degrees around the MLT's torus that are wired in parallel and form the Lorentz vxB B-field coil assembly for the MLT.  It turned out that configuration yielded the highest peak voltage for the MLT's cap-ring for a given 146 MHz ac input power.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: bpb3 on 05/27/2009 09:23 PM
Star Drive:  You wrote "Predicted thrust levels for this ~175 gram test article using Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation is approximately 52.0 Newton with 100W of input power at 146 MHz".    Is that 52.0 Newtons for real?  If so then you are halfway to the 1 Newton/Watt needed for the Warp Star.  I wax excited.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/27/2009 10:24 PM
bpb3:

As G/I thruster just reminded me, this 52N prediction is based on an excel tool that linearized the M-E wormhole term, which can only be solved accurately by numerical integration, which none of us have figured out how to do yet, so our mileage may vary and vary greatly when it comes to the real deal.   I guess I should not have predicted any anticipated thrust levels publically at this stage of our ignorance and just reported on the actual results when it comes along in a few weeks.  Time will tell.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 05/28/2009 12:54 AM
Star Drive:  You wrote "Predicted thrust levels for this ~175 gram test article using Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation is approximately 52.0 Newton with 100W of input power at 146 MHz".    Is that 52.0 Newtons for real?  If so then you are halfway to the 1 Newton/Watt needed for the Warp Star.  I wax excited.

Think of it on a logarithm scale, with 1 Newton per 150 MW as your base (for the thrust from a solar sail, the current best propellantless system). If Woodward can achieve that, he is for all practical purposes there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/28/2009 06:49 PM
Yes well, this isn't Woodward's prediction.  Apart from the fact Woodward's derivation cannot legitimately be used to make thrust predictions inside wormhole territory, it is also true that the mathematical tool Paul is using to get this thrust number is not up to date.  It was constructed by Andrew Palfreyman before Jim realized the necessity of bulk acceleration in these thrusters.  Paul's current build likewise does not accommodate such acceleration so there is an excellent chance that if it works at all, it will produce very small thrusts.  So don't get your hopes up.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/28/2009 08:56 PM
inside wormhole territory
Sometimes I get my terms confused. When I see the word "wormhole" I always imagine a shortcut between 2 distant points in space, but instead of that the MLT creates a small fraction of twisted space-time (wormhole) just to get thrust out of it. That's a very witty move :)


it will produce very small thrusts.  So don't get your hopes up.
The question is how long could it sustain in a vacuum chamber. Any preparations for that kind of demonstration?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/28/2009 10:38 PM
Yes well, this isn't Woodward's prediction.  Apart from the fact Woodward's derivation cannot legitimately be used to make thrust predictions inside wormhole territory, it is also true that the mathematical tool Paul is using to get this thrust number is not up to date.  It was constructed by Andrew Palfreyman before Jim realized the necessity of bulk acceleration in these thrusters.  Paul's current build likewise does not accommodate such acceleration so there is an excellent chance that if it works at all, it will produce very small thrusts.  So don't get your hopes up.

G/I Thruster:

I never said that the noted M-E prediction tool was authored by Dr. Woodward.  And I have posted previously in this forum that this M-E predictive spreadsheet tool was coauthored with Andrew Palfyreman and myself in our STAIF-2006 paper, which is aviailable on the web, warts and all.  Whether you think it is applicable to an MLT operated where the wormhole term is excited is your take on this situation, but in the final analysis it is only knowable by experiment, which will soon be accomplished and reported on.

BTW, the MLT-2009 was designed from the get-go to accomodate the bulk acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini.  In other words, this test article's Teflon cap-ring has electrical leads that will accomodate cyclic Z-axis motions and the cap-ring is potted in a silicone material that will act as both a suspention spring and an electrical insulator as shown in the attached slide.  Again only experimental data will tell us whether this blend of electric, magnetic, and mechancial design compromises used to build this test article will be an MLT winner or a dud. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 05/28/2009 10:43 PM
Good luck to you guys.  I hope I am wrong that this thing violates the laws of physics.  If you are right we will not only have great rocket motor, you will all get Nobel Prizes.

I like you philosophy that the proof is in building and testing.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/29/2009 03:59 AM
Danny:

Since Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect derivation for these mass fluctuations is Lorentz Invariant, i.e. it is a 4D spacetime derivation that is true in all frames of reference per the requirements of Einstein's General Relativity Theory (GRT), it automatically observes all conservations laws including the conservation of energy and momentum.  Where people get confused on this stuff is drawing their thermodynamics systems box locally just around the M-E device in question, whereas it has to be drawn around the causally connected universe where the G/I field generators reside.  Per the latest cosmological data, that means a radius of 13.7 billion light years from the local frame.  In other words when a G/I driven spaceship accelerates, the rest of the universe slows down, or if you prefer, the rest of the universe gets just a little bit colder.

Thanks much for the encouraging words and data is what we are short on.  However, doing this kind of bleeding edge research work after hours is getting to be a bit of a chore.   Let’s hope we make some progress in the near future…
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 05/29/2009 04:31 AM
Danny:

Since Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect derivation for these mass fluctuations is Lorentz Invariant, i.e. it is a 4D spacetime derivation that is true in all frames of reference per the requirements of Einstein's General Relativity Theory (GRT), it automatically observes all conservations laws including the conservation of energy and momentum.  Where people get confused on this stuff is drawing their thermodynamics systems box locally just around the M-E device in question, whereas it has to be drawn around the causally connected universe where the G/I field generators reside.  Per the latest cosmological data, that means a radius of 13.7 billion light years from the local frame.  In other words when a G/I driven spaceship accelerates, the rest of the universe slows down, or if you prefer, the rest of the universe gets just a little bit colder.

Thanks much for the encouraging words and data is what we are short on.  However, doing this kind of bleeding edge research work after hours is getting to be a bit of a chore.   Let’s hope we make some progress in the near future…


The law I am worried about is the conservation of linear momentum.  If this thruster changes the linear momentum of the vehicle it is attached to, them some other object in the universe must have a change of momentum in the opposite direction.  What is this something?  The whole universe "slowing down" or getting colder doesn't conserve linear momentum.  Momentum is a vector, not a scalar.  If the vehicle accelerates to the right the whole universe must accelerate to the left.  Getting colder is NOT an acceleration to the left.

Like I said I truly hope I am wrong or simply don't understand.  If this thing works I can tell my grand kids I had the honor to chat with the people that changed the universe before they were born.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/29/2009 04:36 AM


The law I am worried about is the conservation of linear momentum.  If this thruster changes the linear momentum of the vehicle it is attached to, them some other object in the universe must have a change of momentum in the opposite direction.  What is this something?

Danny Deger
[/quote]

It's literally everything else but chiefly, the most distant matter or Far Off Active Matter (FOAM), as per Mach's Principle.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/29/2009 11:52 AM


The law I am worried about is the conservation of linear momentum.  If this thruster changes the linear momentum of the vehicle it is attached to, them some other object in the universe must have a change of momentum in the opposite direction.  What is this something?

Danny Deger

It's literally everything else but chiefly, the most distant matter or Far Off Active Matter (FOAM), as per Mach's Principle.
[/quote]

Danny & G/I Thruster:

Find attached a slide on this MLT linear momentum topic that I presented at the May 15, 2009 AIAA/Houston Technical Symposium here in Houston.  And yes, G/I thruster has the right of it.  When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 05/29/2009 01:45 PM

snip

Find attached a slide on this MLT linear momentum topic that I presented at the May 15, 2009 AIAA/Houston Technical Symposium here in Houston.  And yes, G/I thruster has the right of it.  When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.

Thanks for the post.  How well known is the G/I field and its effect on moving the rest of the universe?  Is this a new and yet very little tested phenomenon?

I can say without analysis I don't think I will notice the universe move when one of these thrusters moves a spacecraft to Mars.

Danny Deger

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/29/2009 03:01 PM
Danny, the question you're asking can be restated as follows: "what evidence do we have that Mach's Principle is correct?" since it is entirely Mach's Principle that stipulates this relationship.  Jim Woodward's work was to bring Mach and Einstein together but the simplest way to answer your question is to look at Mach.

I'm not aware of any experiments to demonstrate Mach's Principle except those to Jim Woodward over the last decade or so, and since we are all in effect wondering about the theoretical basis for Jim's work, it doesn't serve to look at his lab work for an answer.  Instead, I would recommend approaching the theoretical question of the validity of Mach's Principle through a theoretical approach.  I think you'll find this text is truly excellent:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243608836&sr=8-1

However, if indeed you want to hold out for evidence that Mach's Principle is true, I would then say that literally ALL of Jim Woodward's experiments over the years demonstrate evidence for this Principle.  Jim's thrusters cannot work unless Mach was and is correct.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/29/2009 03:14 PM
inside wormhole territory
Sometimes I get my terms confused. When I see the word "wormhole" I always imagine a shortcut between 2 distant points in space, but instead of that the MLT creates a small fraction of twisted space-time (wormhole) just to get thrust out of it. That's a very witty move :)


it will produce very small thrusts.  So don't get your hopes up.
The question is how long could it sustain in a vacuum chamber. Any preparations for that kind of demonstration?

Sith, the term "wormhole territory" used in Jim Woodward's work (as well as that of guys like Paul March of course!) reflects the idea of mass fluctuating to the point that it becomes negative.  Once matter has a negative mass, even if only transiently; then it is what we call "exotic matter" and can be used to build warp drives and traversable wormholes.  This is why we call this transition from normal mass with normal inertia, to exotic matter with negative inertia by the name "wormhole boundary" and the place where exotic matter has negative inertia "wormhole territory."  This is not the same as claiming to build a wormhole.  I don't know anyone who has made such a claim, certainly not Jim Woodward.

What you're reading and confusing with this is that Jim is working outside wormhole territory, meaning he is fluctuating the mass less than 100% or dm<m and that Paul March is working within wormhole territory where the fluctuation is more than 100% or dm>m.  This is just the common use of the term "wormhole" when dealing with this work.

Jim always works in a vacuum chamber as this is the only way to isolate spurious thrust sources like ion wind and thermal effects when dealing with very small thrusts.  Paul is looking for much larger thrusts so it may turn out he doesn't need vacuum at all.  Lets hope so.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/29/2009 03:34 PM
When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.
What happens if there is more than one MLT ship and each one moves in a different direction? What happens then to the universe?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 05/29/2009 04:24 PM
Same thing that happens to the Earth when two cars drive in different directions.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/29/2009 04:30 PM

snip

Find attached a slide on this MLT linear momentum topic that I presented at the May 15, 2009 AIAA/Houston Technical Symposium here in Houston.  And yes, G/I thruster has the right of it.  When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.

Thanks for the post.  How well known is the G/I field and its effect on moving the rest of the universe?  Is this a new and yet very little tested phenomenon?

I can say without analysis I don't think I will notice the universe move when one of these thrusters moves a spacecraft to Mars.

Danny Deger

Danny:

I’d have to say that the idea that the cosmological gravity field is the seat of inertia is not new, but very few professionals other than in the General Relativity Theory (GRT) community are familiar with it enough to be able to participate in it in a productive way.  So I guess I need to paint a quick history of where this all started for you.

The idea of the cosmological gravity field generated by the mostly distant mass/energy in the causally connected universe giving rise to inertial reaction forces was first posited by Ernst Mach in the late 1800s, being called later by Einstein as “Mach’s Principle.”  Albert Einstein then discussed the idea further with Mach during the time period between Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity paper and his 1915 General Relativity paper, and Einstein was quoted after 1915 as saying that “Mach’s Principle” was the best explanation for the property we call inertia. 

Not much was done with this gravity/inertia (gravinertial) field idea until the early 1950s where Dennis Sciama, (Steven Hawking’s grad advisor at Cambridge, UK), published a 1953 paper showing how Mach’s Principle could be shown to be the gravitational parallel to Michael Faraday’s electrical induction effect.  Sciama then demonstrated that the near instantaneous inertial reaction forces for all accelerating objects can be viewed as a GRT based  “inertial-induction effect” generated by the gravity based inertial radiation field created by the mostly distant cosmic mass-energy of the universe.  Then in 1975 Derek Raine showed that Sciama’s inertial-induction conjecture is correct in Einstein’s GRT for Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmologies, i.e., in a universe like our own.   

Dr. Woodward who has a PhD in the history of gravitational physics came along in the mid 1980s looking at all that had gone before in this inertial induction venue and started to play with the mathematical derivations surrounding Newton’s three laws of motion.  He found through this process that when the derivation for Newton’s three laws of motion were performed in GRT compliant 4D spacetime, i.e. in a Lorentz invariant way, he found that there were several transient mass terms in the second and third laws, (F=m*a and action=reaction), that indicated that when a body is accelerated and undergoes an internal energy change such as in a capacitor that is charging and discharging, that a transient mass term should be expressed in the mass of the capacitor.

Over the last fifteen years, Woodward, his graduate student Tom Mahood, and several others including myself have been trying to flesh out Woodward’s mass fluctuation conjecture with experimental data with mixed results.  It appears that there are many ways to screw up building these G/I ac devices since they are very phase sensitive to forces AND fields that getting it wrong is very easy and getting it right is very, very difficult.   

There is lots more to say, but that’s probably enough for now. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/29/2009 07:53 PM
Quote
G/I ac devices
Alternating current (AC)? What is so special in it for a MLT? For example it could be DC powered. What would be the difference?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/29/2009 08:29 PM
Quote
G/I ac devices
Alternating current (AC)? What is so special in it for a MLT? For example it could be DC powered. What would be the difference?

Sith:

ALL G/I based mass fluctuations are transient by their very nature since they rely on the time rate of change of the power going through the accelerated caps in question, which generates spacetime distrubances around the dielectric in question that propogate away from the G/I drive at lightspeed.  Also if you just kept increasing the applied voltage to a cap in a time varying dc signal, sooner or later the cap will burn out.  So to implement a semi-continuous output force G/I drive, one has to apply an alternating current (ac) excitation voltage to them with higher ac frequencies being better, in fact much better.  Direct currect (dc) won't work for long since the dP/dt term goes to zero after a short time period.  I'm appending again my MLT scaling slide for your reference.   
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/29/2009 08:51 PM
Quote
Also if you just kept increasing the applied voltage to a cap in a time varying dc signal, sooner or later the cap will burn out
Even if the dc is pulsed?

How are the amps and the volts distributed in a full completed MLT prototype system? I mean for high voltage corresponds low current and on the contrary.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/29/2009 09:21 PM
Sith:

Except for your selected ground reference voltage there is little difference between ac and pulsed dc so sure, it could be made to work for pulsed dc if your signal generator was set up for that mode of operation.

"How are the amps and the volts distributed in a full completed MLT prototype system?  I mean for high voltage corresponds low current and on the contrary."

That is up to the designer.  If you look at the MLT scaling chart I sent out, you will note that the magnitude of the delta mass ratio generated in the cap dielectric is proportional to the cube of the cap voltage and the cube of the frequency.  So you can operate at low frequencies, but high voltages verses at high drive frequencies and low voltages and get similar results for a given cap dielectric.  That is what makes these MLTs so difficult to design because there are just so many variations that are possible with some being better than others...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/02/2009 07:15 AM
What velocities can a MLT obtain in an atmospheric flight and could it be used as an intercontinental hypersonic ballistic plain? This rises the next question - if it can travel in atmosphere pretty well, is there some special way to reduce air drag in order to use less fuel (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)

P.S. As I understand it negative inertia equals negative resistance, do I use the term correct?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/02/2009 01:45 PM
I think you're confusing the operation of a thruster with the operation of an aerodynamic body in atmosphere.  These are two different issues.  In theory, a thruster of sufficient thrust/weight ratio can drive a hypersonic craft, not limited so much by the thruster but by the aerodynamics of the craft.  The limiting factor would eventually be the velocity of the propellant but the effective velocity of M-E thrusters is so high, this could never be a limiting factor.

So, given for example a 1 N/W MLT or UFG, we could easily build a global ambulance that would be about the size of a regular ambulance but capable of hypersonic flight and global range.  All sorts of flying cars and other forms of transport are possible if you can build a 1 N/W M-E thruster.  How fast these craft can go is determined by their aerodynamics and heat shedding abilities and how high they can go is determined by their ability to withstand vacuum and space radiation.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/02/2009 09:49 PM
Guys:

If we have G/I based 1.0 N/W thrusters at our disposal and you have to go long distances greater than say 100 miles on the Earth or any other similar planetary body with an atmosphere, you don't fight the Earth's atmosphere, you go over it!  If your destination is less than 100 miles though just run subsonic at say 600 mph and get to your destination in under 10 minutes.   That's good enough for me... 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/03/2009 12:53 PM
(http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/8041/warp.jpg)

Now that's cool because it takes less than 2/10 of the fuel to climb up to orbit. Ordinary it'll take the whole fuel to get there. And we all know that LEO is half way to anywhere :)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/03/2009 03:50 PM
Ok here's a conceptual design for a polywell powered space craft using both fusion heated thrust and Mach-Effect impulse powered by MaGrid power conversion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/03/2009 04:37 PM
Ok here's a conceptual design for a polywell powered space craft using both fusion heated thrust and Mach-Effect impulse powered by MaGrid power conversion.
Read again the title of this thread and think again if this belongs here.

Fusion is the power source for the mach-effect thrusters, and may only be used for reaction boosting thrust in high-g needs.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/03/2009 04:50 PM
The vehicle you're proposing utilizes ordinary rocket propulsion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/04/2009 01:25 AM
The vehicle you're proposing utilizes ordinary rocket propulsion.

Only for launch from planetary surfaces with too high gravity, and for venting reactor plasma waste products. Bulk of propulsion will be the ME thrusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/04/2009 02:03 AM
I like it.  How did you get the 7 meter core?  I've never understood how to get a guess as to the size of the core w/cooling, shielding etc. given a fusion core.  For the Poly one supposes the rings are superconducting and therefore probably YBCO cooled with N2.  Since the core needs cooling right at the rings, it seems logical to me 7 meters is enough but I'm curious what the Talk Poly people say here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/04/2009 04:26 AM
Guys:

Until we actually understand what the REAL limits are for a G/I field thruster system, ideas like MLorrey’s MaGrid Fusion powered spacecraft need to be examined and kept in our design files until we know for sure what the highest efficiency obtainable for an MLT or its other G/I field based cousins can be.  Dr. Woodward is still of the opinion that a device utilizing only the M-E impulse term will be power limited by the onboard power supply, so if you want high thrust MLTs running with a delta mass ratio of less than 1.0, then be prepared to anti-up some hefty power levels measured in the MW to GW because the best efficiencies won't exceed 0.001 N/W. 

On the other-hand even Woodward acknowledges that if we can utilize the M-E wormhole term in a stable manner, then 1.0 N/W or better G/I drives are achievable because of the direct real-time energy coupling from the FOAM to the engine's local frame is permitted by the formation of all those transient nano-wormholes around each of the accelerated atoms in the dielectric.  However, Andrew Palfreyman's and my calculations show that if you are pushing on the G/I field and it pushes back by using either of these M-E methods, you are then by definition extracting energy from the G/I field that surround your ship and 1.0+ N/W thrusters become a real possibility.  Only time and more G/I prototypes will tell us what G/I roads are really open to us, so get out there and start building!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/04/2009 04:27 AM
Well, it seems that they are of the opinion that the core can be almost any size. Maybe 10m dia. at first but perhaps it could be scaled down to something that would fit under a car bonnet*

*hood, to the Americans ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Spacenick on 06/04/2009 04:30 PM
It's a pity that it's highly doubtful this technology is at all possible.
However if it is, well then a 1 N/W thruster woudl definitely solve all problems of space flight at once and we could quite easily built a reusable Shuttle that could bring 25 tons to LEO and with a recharge there even to the moon an beyond and it could quite likely do it for the cost of a train ride across the country and maybe with a launch every 48 hours or so.
That would make building huge space nuclear powered ships not much more expensive then building a nuclear submarine maybe even less expensive and travel to Mars wouldn't be much of a chalenge anymore.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/04/2009 06:03 PM
Spacenick:

Considering the promise of this new gravinertial (G/I) field based Mach-Effect (M-E) science and technology, and remember that it is based on Einstein's already well vetted General Relativity Theory (GRT) with only minor tweaks by Dennis Sciama and James Woodward along the way, why do you say that this technology is; "it's highly doubtful is at all possible"? 

The M-E is just a transient inertial effect lurking under Newton's three laws of motion that has been neglected up until now because rockets were good enough to do the things we wanted to do up until now.  Well guess what?  Rockets ARE NO LONGER good enough to do the things we need to be doing to become a space faring civilization!  So we had best stop wishing for a panacea for our rocket problems and find a new path.  That is what the M-E group is trying to do and the more who are willing to participate in this new adventure, the quicker we will find the right way(s) to do it.

The self-financed M-E R&D group also continues to gather hard data that indicates that this M-E based transient mass fluctuation phenomenon does indeed exist, and if the collective aerospace community would apply itself to resolving the remaining issues surrounding its use, the major paradigm shift in our capabilities you comment on will become possible and affordable.  For an example, Dr. Woodward just completed a six month rotary test article study developing an unambiguous demonstration that the M-E’s predicted mass fluctuations can be generated on cue when the appropriate magnitude of bulk acceleration and time rate of change of power through a ceramic dielectric is generated.  This mass fluctuation data, which indicated that it can be generated on cue, has already been presented on this forum.  However, what we had missed before in our previous M-E experiments over the last ten years was the required MAGNITUDE of the bulk acceleration and dP/dt parameters, such as the need for a bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars that is measured in thousands of gees instead of just gees.  We also have to simultaneous maximize the time rate of change of power (dP/dt) being pumped through the accelerated dielectric in question that has to be measured in kVARs (Volt-Amp-Reactive) or tens of kVARs instead of just VARs if we want to generate tens to thousands of Newton of thrust in our M-E based field thrusters.  This is information that was hidden away in the M-E’s wave equation’s constants of integration that were NOT inherently obvious to the most casual observer.   Given these new insights, I have moderately high hopes that the next generation of M-E tests articles just hitting the testing pipeline should perform much better than my Mach-2MHz test article’s previous best thrust output +0.5/-0.2 gram-force.   Of course the proof is in the pudding and Murphy is always waiting to make an ass of one, so we don’t expect any skeptics out there to really believe this stuff until we can float in the test article under its own power for this pivotal demonstration.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Spacenick on 06/04/2009 09:13 PM
If what you say is true, well then goodby rockets hello starships.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/05/2009 04:10 AM
That's the whole point of Paul March's WarpStar paper.  Have you read it?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 06/07/2009 08:06 PM
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1114

Guest: Dr. James Woodward. Topic: Mach/Woodward Effect, revolutionary propulsion, gravitation, inertia, electrostriction, specific impulse, interstellar space travel, wormholes. Dr. James Woodward returned to The Space Show for updates on his work with the Mach Effect, also referred to as the Woodward Effect. The first part of the discussion served as primer to the work of Ernst Mach, what the Mach effect is, and how it’s plausible that it could someday lead to interstellar space travel. In this discussion, we learned about propellant, the dialectical constraints, engineering issues, wormholes, and much more. Dr. Woodward also spoke about acceleration, electrostriction, and the physics supporting the theories. We also talked about experiments and what constitutes science. This is a good discussion you will not want to miss. Dr. Woodward also spoke about a paper delivered at SPESIF 2009 by Pharis Williams on five-dimensional theories, electromagnetism, and gravity. You will want to hear what he has to say about this line of research. Dr. Woodward was asked about the rift between the science and engineering fields with the social science fields. He also talked with us about what constitutes serious out of the box research versus whacky ideas, that is real physics, real science. He then elaborated with us as to his interest in revolutionary propulsion. A listener even asked him how he funded his research and if it was ready for primetime, such as an NSF grant. Again, don't miss his response to this question. If you have a comment or question for Dr. James Woodward, please send him a note at jwoodward@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU. His Power Point presentation from the SPESIF 2009 conference will soon be available at the SPESIF 2009 website at http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/08/2009 09:04 PM
I like it.  How did you get the 7 meter core?  I've never understood how to get a guess as to the size of the core w/cooling, shielding etc. given a fusion core.  For the Poly one supposes the rings are superconducting and therefore probably YBCO cooled with N2.  Since the core needs cooling right at the rings, it seems logical to me 7 meters is enough but I'm curious what the Talk Poly people say here.

The core is a 3 meter core. The reactor housing is 7 meters diameter. According to rnebel and Bussard, a core with 3 meter diameter magnets would generate 100 MW, one with 3.1 meter magnets would generate 1 GW. The reactor will run hydrogen rich to minimize bremsstrahlung, so there will be excess heat to cool to avoid built up thermalization. The heat will be regen cooled by hydrogen that would in a reaction thrust mode be vented through the bell nozzle and given additional magnetic thrust. Otherwise would be run through the turbogenerators to generate more power for the thrusters and to conserve hydrogen in space. The high thrust would only be needed for exiting atmosphere/reaching escape velocity.

The magnetic core is surrounded by the outer grid that does power conversion and containment, and 1 meter further out from there is the reactor wall, which is made up of hydrogen cooling lines.

There should be enough surplus power available to power up the magnetic ram scoop in the nose for collecting interstellar hydrogen to refuel in transit, also to serve to shield and deflect a lot of unwanted dust and gas at significant percentages of C.

Yes, the magnet toruses get coolant running through them.

The main issues I see in this design is having the ability to radiate and cool the hydrogen in regen/power producing mode. The deployable radiators in the landing struts may be too small to be sufficient.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2009 07:31 PM
G/I Thruster:

“Paul barely understands it and he's been doing this physics for more than a decade.  He's explaining with recourse to particles and waves when in fact this is NOT what the theory is all about.  It's FIELD THEORY.”

You keep hammering everyone in this forum that we are not using the idea of the physics “field theory” correctly.  However, have you ever bothered to fully appreciate what a field theory in physics can cover?  For example let’s take a look at Wiki on what they have to say about the “Field” in Physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics) 

“In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated to each point of spacetime.  A field can be classified as a scalar field, a vector field, or a tensor field, according to whether the value of the field at each point is a scalar, a vector, or, more generally, a tensor, respectively.  For example, the Newtonian gravitational field is a vector field: specifying its value at a point in spacetime requires three numbers, the components of the gravitational field vector at that point.



Field theory usually refers to a construction of the dynamics of a field, i.e. a specification of how a field changes with time or with respect to other components of the field.  Usually this is done by writing a Lagrangian or a Hamiltonian of the field, and treating it as the classical mechanics (or quantum mechanics) of a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom. The resulting field theories are referred to as classical or quantum field theories.”


In short, a field theory contains charge sources and the energy interactions between these charge sources that is described by the interaction rules as applied to a spatial matrix with arbitrarily small spacing between the points examined in the field’s defined volume.  These field sources can and do have mass such as in any of the atomic elementary particles.  The energy interactions between these charge sources can take the form of particle-like interactions between sources such as photons being exchanged in quantum electrodynamics, or they can be described as energy waves propagating through the field’s volume as in hydrodynamics that use particles to convey these forces at each point in the field.   In any of these field theories though, the usage of particles and waves as parts in the field theory is perfectly acceptable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2009 07:57 PM
Lampy:

"So... how important are the energy changes? If we have ten million point source dwarves jumping up and down in unison, do we get the same effect or is a change in electron density a key factor?"

The M-E derivation is less than revealing on how the bulk acceleration and dP/dt power flux creates the G/I densification waves that can transiently shield the accelerated dielectric from the ambient G/I field.  I tried to come up with a summary slide on how this works today, but it’s still lacking something in the translation.  However the M-E math does indicate that the larger the dP/dt flux in the accelerated cap, the larger delta mass signature becomes.  And the latest rotary test series indicates that the delta mass signature is proportional to the applied bulk acceleration so one could assume that the total delta mass signature should be proportional to the product of the bulk acceleration times the magnitude of the applied dP/dt power flux.   


 “Interesting, sounds much like raising or lowering vacuum energy levels.

It could be viewed that way.


This G/I densification... this is increase in something akin to ambient gravitational strength, isn't it?”

Since the G/I field is derived from the universe’s gravitational field, the transient G/I field densification could be viewed as having a higher gravitational energy level during that time period.


Quote
“Then, is it thru the inertia wave that you link electromotive force with the force of gravity?”

I wish I could say “Yes”, but at this stage of the game all I can say is that might be the case, but without more experimental data, my answer has to remain a “maybe”.


Connected to electrons themselves, you think, or electromagnetic fields?
[/quote]


IMO it's the electromagnetic fields created in the accelerated dielectric that is undergoing a dP/dt power flux which creates transient E-fields and B-fields in and around the dielectric.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/18/2009 03:12 AM
So, the "cap-electrode E-field induced acceleration vectors of each ...[ion]... will be countered by the equal and opposite vector accelerations..."  This sounds like conservation of momentum, but it doesn't sound like forward motion.  But then you go on to posit that the second "externally applied force" is that which accelerates the dielectric mass in the opposite direction.  It is the periodicity of this force which you control to change directions of the mass at precisely the moment when it has "less" mass.

When we were kids, we used to do this at the lake in rental canoes.  You stand up in the canoe, and try to propel it forward by rhythmically pushing your body around, standing in a sort of surfer's pose.  As you can imagine, it's virtually impossible, but a great deal of fun.  Your paddle ball analogy (or whoever's) is more or less the same thing.  This is where the conservation of momentum appears to break down.

What the G/I drive is more akin to the Jesus lizard. It runs like crazy across the water because it makes its action fast (putting its foot down) and then keeping the momentum by swinging its foot forward whilst the water behind flows back into the temporary crater it made in the water.

So that's two actions, down + rear and forward cycling, just like walking.

From Star-Drive's wiki link:

Quote
If an electrical charge is moved, the effects on another charge do not appear instantaneously. The first charge feels a reaction force, picking up momentum, but the second charge feels nothing until the influence, traveling at the speed of light, reaches it and gives it the momentum. Where is the momentum before the second charge moves? By the law of conservation of momentum it must be somewhere. Physicists have found it of "great utility for the analysis of forces"[3] to think of it as being in the field.

See, it's just a matter of cheating. Your momentum is restored to the universe... after 15 billion years...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/18/2009 05:41 PM
Lampy:

The delayed conservation of momentum in the cosmological gravinertial field problem is very much akin to the case of the submarine's propeller back-reacting off the expelled water.  If the sub is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how long does the expelled water from the prop take to interact with the crust of the Earth if the water flux is directed horizontally to the surface of the ocean where the nearest land could be thousands of miles away?  And how washed out will that water flux become before it gets there??  The time lags, velocity magnitudes and amount of water participating in the propeller's conservation dance with the Earth will be very much different than when this water flux started at the prop.

BTW, I like your Jesus Lizard example, for it makes for a great visual example of describing this "by your bootstraps" propulsion system.  The devil IS in the details!  And just for fun find below a U-Tube URL to the Lizard in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSLUwmJOo_M
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2009 02:15 AM
I like the imagery of the lizard also, but the the lizard is pushing on a local physical medium.  I've been thinking about fields, and the fact that their effects propagate at light speed, but I don't get yet what you're pushing against.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/19/2009 03:49 AM
I like the imagery of the lizard also, but the the lizard is pushing on a local physical medium.  I've been thinking about fields, and the fact that their effects propagate at light speed, but I don't get yet what you're pushing against.

And who says that a magnetic or G/I field isn't a physcial medium?  Last time I looked electric induction motor's rotors don't push on anything "physical" but they sure do work...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/19/2009 06:19 AM
"permittivity" and "permeability" are both used to describe the vacuum WRT magnetic fields.

One of the objections against rocket motors in space was that they "don't have anything to push against." Picture a charged particle (a proton), rushing through space. It encounters a big positively charge particle (Fe3+?) directly in its path.

What happens is that the proton is nudged aside *before* the Fe3+ ion feels the effects. If you think of the ions as being nuts embedded in balls of (weightless) jelly you get the idea. The momentum is stored in the jelly before the nuts (and the rest of the jelly) feel it. Exactly the same thing happens with the G/I field except on a much longer time scale.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2009 12:21 PM
Accepting that it's a physical medium, then what about the idea that it's non-local?  That what you're pushing against is so far away?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/19/2009 03:58 PM
There's no coherent theory of this based upon waves or particles.  If you want to try to see it in light of wave or particle theory you can, and Paul frequently has, but there is no real theory for this.  Jim Woodward's gravinertial theory is pure field theory and just like all electromagnetic field theory we use to explain the action of induction motors, it is not necessary to posit waves or particles.

So until someone actually finds a graviton or a gravity wave, best is to say the local effect pushes on the field but that the field isn't "made " of anything.  (This is not the same as "non-locality.")  Any other explanation is just pure guesswork and does not deserve to be presented as part of a cogent theory.  That's right: gravity waves, inertial waves, density waves--all not part of Jim Woodward's theory.  All extraneous. 

This from a guy who is fairly committed to the theory of quantum loop gravity. . .but there is only rationalistic support for QLG, there is no evidence yet so there's no point in me trying to force bits of QLG into Jim's theory.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Eric_S on 06/28/2009 09:57 PM
If you don't mind me wondering, does anybody here have a rough guess of when the next empirical test is due?

I know that data analysis, etc. takes time, but it'd still be interesting to have that to form a ball park guess about when one can expect results.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/28/2009 10:04 PM
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/28/2009 11:20 PM
Accepting that it's a physical medium, then what about the idea that it's non-local?  That what you're pushing against is so far away?

Ok you need to understand that inertia, the resistance to acceleration, is a sort of gravity tension on any mass by all the other mass in the universe. Imagine that every mass is linked to every other mass in the universe by long rubber bands. Obviously this causes a lot of tension in every direction and would inhibit any object so linked to everything else from changing their acceleration. Velocity is fine, things stay in motion that are in motion, and stay at rest that are at rest. Changing those states with acceleration creates resistance to the acceleration via those rubber bands, much as CEMF arises within an electric coil in response to application of EMF. Inertia is a reaction against acceleration.

Now, if you are able to change the mass of an object when its accelerating in one direction, versus its mass when its moving in the opposite direction, then the reaction will change and result in a net acceleration.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/28/2009 11:51 PM
"Inertia is a reaction against acceleration."

Exactly right and it's because this reaction has a time delay as described by GR, that mass temporarily fluctuates.  If gravity propagated instantaneously, this would not be true and GR would be wrong, but gravity propagates at c and necessarily entails this time delay.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/29/2009 02:47 AM
Hey fellas,

Just thought you might want to read this. Our European buddies have been making interesting progress over the past couple of years.

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf

What I find interesting is the mass increase of Cooper-pairs and the idea of superconductors breaking gauge invariance... gravitons acquiring mass which increases the gravitomagnetic effect 10^30 fold. This results in measured tangential accelerations of 100 microgees. I wonder if the same results could be explained by G-I theory?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/29/2009 03:20 AM
Any idea how old this is?  Just taking a short glance but looks like stuff from STAIF '07 or so, from back before Martin found he was getting the same readings without the superconductor.

After discovering this, at STAIF '08 he had sold the idea of replications to the Aerospace Company, EarthTech and some group in NZ but continued studies threw that all to the winds.  Now if Martin has something new to share I'm certainly interested but he didn't present at SPESIF this year and so far as I know, no new news.  I don't think he knows yet why he has the readings he's had.  Certainly, he didn't need a superconducting ring for them like in this paper.

This is what comes from experimenting without solid theory.  Martin was following a rabbit trail based on things like Pod's work but again like Pod, with no idea why he should find something interesting.

Now if he has some theory and new results, I'm interested; but don't hold your breath.  At STAIF '08 he was looking for billion dollar funding for a huge exploratory project but his results just don't add up.

Martin is a careful experimenter, but he can't explain what he says he sees.  That being the case, he can continue to fund his own research.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/29/2009 04:42 AM
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised.  I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned.  However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec.  I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/29/2009 11:52 AM
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised.  I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned.  However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec.  I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.


And here is a picture of the completed test article.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/29/2009 04:17 PM
The coil on the underside (lower left) is for matching?  What happened with the stray capacitance issue and how does that affect your Q?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/29/2009 04:41 PM
Excuse me, guys, but the measurement is in inches or metres? I mean - what is the lenght of the device anyway (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)

btw, I apologize for mention it, but you have to know that there are many europeans here and we have different measurement scale. Not that we can't calculate, but it's about convenience :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/29/2009 04:56 PM
Excuse me, guys, but the measurement is in inches or metres? I mean - what is the lenght of the device anyway (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)

btw, I apologize for mention it, but you have to know that there are many europeans here and we have different measurement scale. Not that we can't calculate, but it's about convenience :)

4.00" = 4.00 inches = 10.16cm = 0.1016 meter.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/29/2009 05:02 PM
The coil on the underside (lower left) is for matching?  What happened with the stray capacitance issue and how does that affect your Q?

The 6-Turn, 1.00" (2.54cm) wide yellow mylar covered coil on the bottom of the test article is the matching coil L1 that is sized to provide enough inductance to resonant the MLT's complex impedance at ~52.0 MHz.  As to the stray capacitance and Quality factor issues, I'll be able to tell you about them after I get through running a frequency sweep of the test article from 2.0 MHz up to 200 MHz while using a controlled load impedance.  That will happen in the next few days as my day job & home duties permit.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/29/2009 07:46 PM
4.00" = 4.00 inches = 10.16cm = 0.1016 meter.
Thanks
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 06/30/2009 09:21 PM
Accepting that it's a physical medium, then what about the idea that it's non-local?  That what you're pushing against is so far away?

Ok you need to understand that inertia, the resistance to acceleration, is a sort of gravity tension on any mass by all the other mass in the universe. Imagine that every mass is linked to every other mass in the universe by long rubber bands. Obviously this causes a lot of tension in every direction and would inhibit any object so linked to everything else from changing their acceleration. Velocity is fine, things stay in motion that are in motion, and stay at rest that are at rest. Changing those states with acceleration creates resistance to the acceleration via those rubber bands, much as CEMF arises within an electric coil in response to application of EMF. Inertia is a reaction against acceleration.

Now, if you are able to change the mass of an object when its accelerating in one direction, versus its mass when its moving in the opposite direction, then the reaction will change and result in a net acceleration.

This doesn't make any sense.  Why would "tension in every direction" care about acceleration but be fine with velocity?  If you actually think about something tied to a bunch of rubber bands from every direction, if that something is in motion, the rubber bands have to change length, causing the tensions to change.  I don't see how it makes any sense to say that uniform motion makes sense with that metaphor.  Likewise an instantaneous acceleration does not change the band lengths (it changes the rate of change of band lengths), so the bands shouldn't even know it happens until delta t has ellapsed to allow position change.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 06/30/2009 09:32 PM
Considering the promise of this new gravinertial (G/I) field based Mach-Effect (M-E) science and technology, and remember that it is based on Einstein's already well vetted General Relativity Theory (GRT) with only minor tweaks by Dennis Sciama and James Woodward along the way, why do you say that this technology is; "it's highly doubtful is at all possible"? 

He says that because it violates every observation of conservation of momentum we have ever made.  Ever.  There has never been a case of momentum conserving by reacting only on distant stars at a distance of the scale of the universe.  You must ask yourself seriously why does this effect not occur in ANY other situation.  Why is it that only these special devices are able to harness this reaction over such a scale? 

GR (in the form of Einstein's formulation) is extremely well tested and proven for its range of valid scales.  Any "minor tweaks" must not break any other part of the theory as it currently stands, because every observation we have made so far using it has proven true.  I have not had time to read any of the theory papers to see whether this is true or not, but other similar attempts to "tweak" GR and Newton's laws have failed in the past.  I am not saying it is not possible, just that I agree it is extremely unlikely. 

Yes I fully understand the ramifications if it were possible, but wishing does not make it so.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 06/30/2009 09:43 PM
Lampy:

The delayed conservation of momentum in the cosmological gravinertial field problem is very much akin to the case of the submarine's propeller back-reacting off the expelled water.  If the sub is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how long does the expelled water from the prop take to interact with the crust of the Earth if the water flux is directed horizontally to the surface of the ocean where the nearest land could be thousands of miles away?  And how washed out will that water flux become before it gets there??  The time lags, velocity magnitudes and amount of water participating in the propeller's conservation dance with the Earth will be very much different than when this water flux started at the prop.

BTW, I like your Jesus Lizard example, for it makes for a great visual example of describing this "by your bootstraps" propulsion system.  The devil IS in the details!  And just for fun find below a U-Tube URL to the Lizard in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSLUwmJOo_M


There is nothing whatsoever delayed about submarine propulsion.  Momentum is immediately conserved as the water expelled has the same momentum as that imparted to the sub.  As the wake moves downstream away from the sub, it entrains more water, lowering velocity, but the momentum is still there.  Eventually the momentum is transferred to the Earth as viscous shear forces or stagnation at the landmass.  Throughout this entire process momentum is always locally conserved. 

Momentum is always locally conserved with the lizard as well.  The lizard is in effect a pulsejet pointed slightly down and to the rear.  The momentum imparted by the foot impact travels down and back in a wake that eventually imparts its momentum to the earth, just like the sub wake.  There is nothing astonishing or "by your bootstraps" about it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/30/2009 09:51 PM
The effect probably does occur in many other situations, such as when a steel ball bounces.  The trouble is that unless you specifically design a thruster to take advantage of the effect, it is too small to note.  This is much the same as many other forces--magnetism for instance.  Unless you mine magnetite and refine it, or later make a permanent magnet out of a specific material suited to this, it's very unlikely you'll make use of magnetism.  It was certainly studied and used many centuries before it was understood, but only used in the most simple ways.  A makeshift compass from floating a magnetite sliver on a leaf, etc.  What it took for magnets to come into their own was a fuller understanding of the field theory behind the force, a description of how magnetism works, that enabled construction of things like induction motors.

That's what we have with Jim's theory, an explanation for how/why M-E ought to work that should enable us to move past the seeming inconsequential natural occurrence of the force, like a magnetized sliver on a leaf; to a gravinertial induction motor.

You have to look at the literature and decide from there.  But certainly, M-E does not contradict GR in any way and it is not a violation of conservation in any way.  If it were, it would have been dismissed as a bad joke more than a decade ago.

Forget the "its too good to be true" argument.  If the folks had known where Maxwell and Lorentz's theories would lead them, no one would have believed it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 06/30/2009 09:59 PM
"permittivity" and "permeability" are both used to describe the vacuum WRT magnetic fields.

One of the objections against rocket motors in space was that they "don't have anything to push against." Picture a charged particle (a proton), rushing through space. It encounters a big positively charge particle (Fe3+?) directly in its path.

What happens is that the proton is nudged aside *before* the Fe3+ ion feels the effects. If you think of the ions as being nuts embedded in balls of (weightless) jelly you get the idea. The momentum is stored in the jelly before the nuts (and the rest of the jelly) feel it. Exactly the same thing happens with the G/I field except on a much longer time scale.

This just isn't true.  For two particles in inertial frames (assuming they have not been accelerated recently), their fields extend infinitely far from the particles themselves.  Because relatively shows us that any two inertial frames are equivalent, we can choose a frame that follows the proton or the ion.  There is nothing special about the frame of the proton.  In either case, the field of the particle we are approaching imparts force on us, but the field of the particle we are traveling with travels with the particle, and imparts force on the other particle.  Apart from the already dangerous practice of trying to determine what happens first at relativistic velocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) let's examine a frame that follows the center of mass of the particles.  In this frame, the proton travels in from the left, and the ion in from the right.  Both of them slow down at the same time (although not the same rate as the velocity of the heavier particle is already slower than that of the proton so that they have equal momentums) as momentum is transferred through the fields of the two particles to the other.  Once again, there is nothing delayed about it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 06/30/2009 10:21 PM
The effect probably does occur in many other situations, such as when a steel ball bounces.  The trouble is that unless you specifically design a thruster to take advantage of the effect, it is too small to note.  This is much the same as many other forces--magnetism for instance.  Unless you mine magnetite and refine it, or later make a permanent magnet out of a specific material suited to this, it's very unlikely you'll make use of magnetism.  It was certainly studied and used many centuries before it was understood, but only used in the most simple ways.  A makeshift compass from floating a magnetite sliver on a leaf, etc.  What it took for magnets to come into their own was a fuller understanding of the field theory behind the force, a description of how magnetism works, that enabled construction of things like induction motors.

That's what we have with Jim's theory, an explanation for how/why M-E ought to work that should enable us to move past the seeming inconsequential natural occurrence of the force, like a magnetized sliver on a leaf; to a gravinertial induction motor.

You have to look at the literature and decide from there.  But certainly, M-E does not contradict GR in any way and it is not a violation of conservation in any way.  If it were, it would have been dismissed as a bad joke more than a decade ago.

Forget the "its too good to be true" argument.  If the folks had known where Maxwell and Lorentz's theories would lead them, no one would have believed it.

My point is not that the effect has not been made use of before (which it clearly has not) but that it has not even influenced any measurements we have ever taken.  If it is in fact occurring when a steel ball bounces, why has it never shown up in any measurements of them?  With magnetism, even before we understood it, we saw that it did things, some of which you have mentioned.  With this proposed effect, there is no evidence whatsoever (outside of the small group related to Woodward) that it exists at all.  Nothing at all from the quantum world all the way up to massive black holes.  Somewhere posted a while back that earlier efforts weren't producing noticeable results because the acceleration was not high enough and the currents were too low.  But what about particle accelerators?  Accelerations on particles can be enormous (I don't know an exact number, but it will be many orders of magnitude greater than those in the test apparati various people are working on). And the magnetic and electric fields in the detectors used are very strong, with enormous currents flowing.  Why is there no trace at all of the effect there?  There is no "seemingly inconsequential natural occurrence of the force" at all to move beyond.

I would posit that it does violate conservation as we know it (I don't know enough about it to say whether it violates GR).  I would say that that right there is enough for it to be dismissed as a bad joke by the mainstream.  You are essentially changing what it means to conserve momentum, and using that to say that you are not violating conservation.  What I am saying is that our understanding of conservation of momentum is in fact violated, and nothing has ever done that in the history of science--nothing.  Even if momentum is conserved at a distance as you suggest, nothing else has ever done that. 

As far as "too good to be true," it isn't the possible applications that make the theory too good to be true.  It is the fact that it does these things by breaking all the science we have ever formulated. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/30/2009 10:44 PM
In the case of the steel ball, which I did not pluck from the air; this has already been the topic of discussion: the ball ought to experience M-E.  All objects under similar conditions ought to experience M-E, billiard balls, etc.  Why has this effect then not been noted?

In short, because in order for it to be noteworthy, it would need to be rectified.  Regardless of the magnitude of the effect, for it to be noteworthy one wants to rectify it.  Remember, for each event that causes a mass fluctuation, there will be essentially four fluctuations: first heavy (positive fluctuation), then light (negative fluctuation), then heavy again, then light again--all the result of a single event that causes the effect.

Now in the case of the steel ball, to note the effect at all you have to have a very fast load cell or some other experimental measurement apparatus.  The ball will change mass in a time varying, cyclic fashion but if you're not measuring the mass of the ball to start with, and not measuring fast enough to see the fluctuation, then it will go unnoticed.

Load cells exist as well as all the other salient apparatus to do the experiment with a steel ball and look for M-E.  This experiment has not been done yet for two reasons.  First, Jim is the only person working on this stuff near full time because he's old enough to be retired.  The rest of us have day jobs even when like you, those include writing a dissertation.  :-)  Second, we've already done a proof of concept test of M-E, looking for the effect alone rather than rectifying it into useful force as with the MLT and UFG thrusters.  The results of those test were posted here in this thread back around March or April (about the time you were off caving.)  Given the utter lack of interest in such black and white test results, I think we now have to presume we need more than proof of M-E.  We need thrust.  But anyone wanting to pursue the steel ball experiment is certainly invited to do so and there are many in Jim's technical working group who would help one approach this experiment.  Again like the rotator, this is a relatively cheap experiment because you don't need vacuum and a thrust balance.  Vacuum would improve the noise floor but I think people have already determined it is not necessary for the experiment.  Chiefly what one needs is a load cell that can take the precise measurement of dm during the fluctuation event.

There may be other natural instances one could look at.  Certainly, there are plenty of examples of aberrations in GR but I have never heard of any of these being linked to M-E theory.  It's possible these aberrations are best described by M-E theory but that will have to wait on the physicists I'm afraid.  They would not be willing to even contemplate GR needs adjustments until they are overwhelmed with aberrations and that's a long time coming yet.

The effect would never happen in a particle accelerator because you need the "squishy bonds" present in larger bits of matter to store the effect.  Single particles do not experience M-E.

And yes, I understand how this still seems to you a violation of conservation.  Until you invest the time to understand how mass can fluctuate at all, this will probably continue to plague you, so I do suggest you take a look at the literature when you can.  Just remember, ALL physicists have this same concern you're sharing as do I, that nothing should violate conservation.  That's why unless you can do the field theory yourself, it's very important to have peer review on any subject like this.  If Jim's theory violated conservation, it would certainly never have passed peer review more than a decade ago.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/30/2009 11:46 PM
"This doesn't make any sense.  Why would "tension in every direction" care about acceleration but be fine with velocity?  If you actually think about something tied to a bunch of rubber bands from every direction, if that something is in motion, the rubber bands have to change length, causing the tensions to change.  I don't see how it makes any sense to say that uniform motion makes sense with that metaphor.  Likewise an instantaneous acceleration does not change the band lengths (it changes the rate of change of band lengths), so the bands shouldn't even know it happens until delta t has ellapsed to allow position change."

It's just an analogy and all analogies break down at some point.  If they don't break down they're "examples" instead.  :-)

In this case, the rubber bands provide more tension the further they're stretched and gravity provides less tension the further it's acting.  Analogy breakdown.  But it's still a decent image of tension at a distance and it does manage to evoke the oddness of Mach's Principle that it is matter's gravitic connection with chieflly the farthest matter in the universe that causes inertia.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 06/30/2009 11:53 PM
I keep reading this thread, and my head keeps exploding

neat stuff
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 02:39 AM
Your head keeps exploding,  Gees, is that what all this gray goo is all over me?

Please, keep your brains to yourself.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/01/2009 02:49 AM
For two particles in inertial frames (assuming they have not been accelerated recently)

Considering what you're attacking, that might not be a fair assumption...  but leave that for now...

Quote
Apart from the already dangerous practice of trying to determine what happens first at relativistic velocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) let's examine a frame that follows the center of mass of the particles.

That's cheating.  Why don't you take the frame of reference of the heavy ion, as implied by the language of the example?  I think you'll find that the "relativity of simultaneity" gives you a slightly different answer...

Quote
Even if momentum is conserved at a distance as you suggest, nothing else has ever done that.

Object falling in gravity field.  It accelerates.  Without expending propellant.  Where is the momentum coming from?  The gravitating body it's falling towards, naturally - which it hasn't touched yet.

Field theory.

I'm not 100% convinced it's real either, but I think you're being needlessly dismissive of this stuff.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 03:25 AM
I'm still working on the math, but I want to add an observation. 

Part of the problem with M-E as reported here in this thread are the fairly small forces compared to the power required to activate them.  Presumably this can be remedied by better understanding from further experimentation, which is fine, for the moment.  Now I expect criticism for not metioning thrust efficiency in the proper units, but such a rocket, as currently envisioned, will require a reactor to generate the electicity to realize this effect.  Paul March is claiming to be able to convert electricity directly into forward momentum with the use of the M-E driver.  The main benefit is that this reactor will weigh substantially less (x orders of magnitude?) than a chemical rocket of the same thrust.  And that would be a wonderful improvement, if it can be achieved.  And converting energy into momentum is one way of conserving momentum, right?

However, if I understand them correctly, they (Woodward, March, et al) are also claiming that there is a different term in the equation they use called the wormhole term, or something similar.  If they can use this term, they can "extract" energy from the universe to power their device in excess of the power they provide, unless I'm mistaken.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 03:31 AM
"Object falling in gravity field.  It accelerates.  Without expending propellant.  Where is the momentum coming from?  The gravitating body it's falling towards, naturally - which it hasn't touched yet.

Field theory.

I'm not 100% convinced it's real either, but I think you're being needlessly dismissive of this stuff.Object falling in gravity field.  It accelerates.  Without expending propellant.  Where is the momentum coming from?  The gravitating body it's falling towards, naturally - which it hasn't touched yet."

Yeah.  You're right on top of the issue.  I wish I could give an answer here but we need a real physicist.  Lacking one, we need to rely upon the peer review process and it certainly finds Jim Woodward's physics work.

John, stop kidding.  You're not "working on the math" at all.  Like me, you don't have the skills and you're not fooling anyone.  You're a pretender. You're not working out the math for anything.  You're posting nonsense because it suits your delusions.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/01/2009 04:40 AM
"permittivity" and "permeability" are both used to describe the vacuum WRT magnetic fields.

One of the objections against rocket motors in space was that they "don't have anything to push against." Picture a charged particle (a proton), rushing through space. It encounters a big positively charge particle (Fe3+?) directly in its path.

What happens is that the proton is nudged aside *before* the Fe3+ ion feels the effects. If you think of the ions as being nuts embedded in balls of (weightless) jelly you get the idea. The momentum is stored in the jelly before the nuts (and the rest of the jelly) feel it. Exactly the same thing happens with the G/I field except on a much longer time scale.

This just isn't true.  For two particles in inertial frames (assuming they have not been accelerated recently), their fields extend infinitely far from the particles themselves.  Because relatively shows us that any two inertial frames are equivalent, we can choose a frame that follows the proton or the ion.  There is nothing special about the frame of the proton.  In either case, the field of the particle we are approaching imparts force on us, but the field of the particle we are traveling with travels with the particle, and imparts force on the other particle.  Apart from the already dangerous practice of trying to determine what happens first at relativistic velocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) let's examine a frame that follows the center of mass of the particles.  In this frame, the proton travels in from the left, and the ion in from the right.  Both of them slow down at the same time (although not the same rate as the velocity of the heavier particle is already slower than that of the proton so that they have equal momentums) as momentum is transferred through the fields of the two particles to the other.  Once again, there is nothing delayed about it.

Geez, sacrifice me at the altar of physics for attempting to describe lightspeed propagation to someone. Yes, I am familiar with the inverse square law - which in this case we are only using in the classical sense. You just can't choose an inertial frame for a proton and measure its velocity change at the same time. But I'm overly complicating things here.

Let me make this very very simple and clear. If I wave a magic wand at 12:00 GMT (in Greenwich) and make the sun disappear, at what time (in Greenwich) will the Earth go spinning off into the void? Let's treat the sun as a point source too.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/01/2009 05:18 AM
However, if I understand them correctly, they (Woodward, March, et al) are also claiming that there is a different term in the equation they use called the wormhole term, or something similar.  If they can use this term, they can "extract" energy from the universe to power their device in excess of the power they provide, unless I'm mistaken.

Yeah, nothing wrong with that. Probes extract energy from the Earth and other planets all the time in slingshot manoeuvres.

>EDIT< Removed OT rant about information loss in black holes
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/01/2009 11:33 AM
Lampy:

The delayed conservation of momentum in the cosmological gravinertial field problem is very much akin to the case of the submarine's propeller back-reacting off the expelled water.  If the sub is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how long does the expelled water from the prop take to interact with the crust of the Earth if the water flux is directed horizontally to the surface of the ocean where the nearest land could be thousands of miles away?  And how washed out will that water flux become before it gets there??  The time lags, velocity magnitudes and amount of water participating in the propeller's conservation dance with the Earth will be very much different than when this water flux started at the prop.

BTW, I like your Jesus Lizard example, for it makes for a great visual example of describing this "by your bootstraps" propulsion system.  The devil IS in the details!  And just for fun find below a U-Tube URL to the Lizard in question:




There is nothing whatsoever delayed about submarine propulsion.  Momentum is immediately conserved as the water expelled has the same momentum as that imparted to the sub.  As the wake moves downstream away from the sub, it entrains more water, lowering velocity, but the momentum is still there.  Eventually the momentum is transferred to the Earth as viscous shear forces or stagnation at the landmass.  Throughout this entire process momentum is always locally conserved. 

Momentum is always locally conserved with the lizard as well.  The lizard is in effect a pulsejet pointed slightly down and to the rear.  The momentum imparted by the foot impact travels down and back in a wake that eventually imparts its momentum to the earth, just like the sub wake.  There is nothing astonishing or "by your bootstraps" about it.


Blaz:

While you are thinking about Lamy's Sun-Earth gravitational transit time question and G/I Thruster's observations on pushing analogies too far before they break, you might also try reading Dr. Woodward's Origin's of Inertia work located at Woodward's CSUF R&D Interest web site.  And I'll even make it easy for you by appending some excerpts from same in a doc file.  When dealing with inertia from the Machian perspective of GRT, Sciama's 1953 paper (see this thread), and Woodward's mass fluctuation conjecture, it’s all about gravitational radiation reaction forces...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 12:53 PM
When I say I'm working on the math, in regard to the M-E effect, it doesn't mean I'm working on the math to prove it wrong, or to advance the subject.  It means that I'm trying to understand it.  One could say I'm "pretending" in my intent, but that would be a ludicrous extrapolation implying some sort of telepathic theory.   This stuff is way over my head, and I don't get it.  My ego tells me: "Keep studying, you can get it!"  If ever I do get it, I'll modify my Segway with a M-E driver and....

However, the analogy about an object falling and not expelling propellant is not the definition of "useful"  (aded the word "useful" on 07-01-09 to clear up any misunderstandings) work.  What we all want to understand is how an object rises and does not expel propellant.  Same with the slingshot manuever, which can only happen after the object is made to rise out of a gravity well.  As to the extraction of energy, the planetary body slows its rate of revolution and momentum is conserved.

We understand that magnetism and gravity "act at a distance".  The new GRT tweak here is that inertia also acts at a distance.  So I ask blazotron:  "Is that what you're asking as well?"  The submarine and the lizard use local inertia, whose center of gravity is very close to the sub and lizard.  The M-E effect purports to use the center of gravity of the universe to perform the same action of pushing.

So here's another question for Star-Drive:  Blazotron says that "momentum is immediately conserved", which was my understanding.  Are you also saying that momentum has a speed of propagation, and it is the speed of light?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 02:58 PM
When I say I'm working on the math, in regard to the M-E effect, it doesn't mean I'm working on the math to prove it wrong, or to advance the subject.  It means that I'm trying to understand it.  One could say I'm "pretending" in my intent, but that would be a ludicrous extrapolation implying some sort of telepathic theory.   This stuff is way over my head, and I don't get it.  My ego tells me: "Keep studying, you can get it!"  If ever I do get it, I'll modify my Segway with a M-E driver and....

However, the analogy about an object falling and not expelling propellant is not the definition of work.  What we all want to understand is how an object rises and does not expel propellant.  Same with the slingshot manuever, which can only happen after the object is made to rise out of a gravity well.  As to the extraction of energy, the planetary body slows its rate of revolution and momentum is conserved.

We understand that magnetism and gravity "act at a distance".  The new GRT tweak here is that inertia also acts at a distance.  So I ask blazotron:  "Is that what you're asking as well?"  The submarine and the lizard use local inertia, whose center of gravity is very close to the sub and lizard.  The M-E effect purports to use the center of gravity of the universe to perform the same action of pushing.

So here's another question for Star-Drive:  Blazotron says that "momentum is immediately conserved", which was my understanding.  Are you also saying that momentum has a speed of propagation, and it is the speed of light?

"However, the analogy about an object falling and not expelling propellant is not the definition of work."

Actually, it is.  When something falls through any sort of field potential, it converts potential to kinetic.  If it's a gravity potential, it converts gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy and "the ability to do work" is the definition of energy.

You're not even getting the first week of first year high-school physics right.  You see why its annoying when you pretend you're working on field theory?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 03:00 PM
What about the object rising without expelling propellant?  I prefer to focus on this type of work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 03:39 PM
I'm still working on the math, but I want to add an observation. 

Part of the problem with M-E as reported here in this thread are the fairly small forces compared to the power required to activate them.  Presumably this can be remedied by better understanding from further experimentation, which is fine, for the moment.  Now I expect criticism for not metioning thrust efficiency in the proper units, but such a rocket, as currently envisioned, will require a reactor to generate the electicity to realize this effect.  Paul March is claiming to be able to convert electricity directly into forward momentum with the use of the M-E driver.  The main benefit is that this reactor will weigh substantially less (x orders of magnitude?) than a chemical rocket of the same thrust.  And that would be a wonderful improvement, if it can be achieved.  And converting energy into momentum is one way of conserving momentum, right?

However, if I understand them correctly, they (Woodward, March, et al) are also claiming that there is a different term in the equation they use called the wormhole term, or something similar.  If they can use this term, they can "extract" energy from the universe to power their device in excess of the power they provide, unless I'm mistaken.
John, I'm all about trying to explain this simpler stuff but I have explained this before. 

There are several benefits to propellantless propulsion.  Regardless of the thrust efficiency, if one can have truly propellantless propulsion, one no longer needs to carry propellant.  That's a  big deal all on its own.  Even very low thrust efficiencies can be used for tasks like satellite station keeping and would provide a huge breakthrough in sat design offering more capability than we have seen in the past.

Second issue is if you can build a thruster with an efficiency high enough to do startling things.  If you can get for example a full Newton thrust from a single watt of power, then you can build spacecraft with the kinds of qualities that amaze, like Paul's WarpStar design; and have for example a "1 gee solution" meaning you can accelerate constantly in space travel at about 1 gee, and get around the solar system very quickly and cheaply.  Huge benefit and the entire system is opened up for human exploitation because the transport is just so cheap.

If it turns out that we can evoke the wormhole term and run these thrusters in a delta mass greater than mass condition (dm>m), then we can rip gravinertial energy right out of the gravitic field that connects all mass in the universe and harvest it.  We will have unlimited, cheap, clean energy.  All our power needs will be cared for and all our spacecraft will be essentially rangeless.  Also, if we can master the physics of "wormhole territory", we can use it to generate the Jupiter sized masses of exotic matter required to build a traversable wormhole, which means not only instantaneous transport through space, but possibly even transport thought time.  And of course as I've mentioned, if we can generate even temporarily this exotic matter with negative inertia, we can also use it to build warp drives.  All this stuff follows as a natural result of Mach, Einstein, Sciama and Woodward's physics.

No, we're not there and won't be for a very long time unless we first have compelling evidence--evidence that compels the physics community to jump all over what is essentially an entirely new field--gravinertial engineering.  But this is not so strange.  Think what others before Maxwell and Lorentz would have thought of the electro-magnetic engineering we have in the smallest, simplest induction motors.  This stuff always seems like magic to the generations that precede the technology.  That's the way all technology is.  It astonishes.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 04:03 PM
The above post is a good explanation of the benefits of M-E drive, but it is not a good explanation of how the M-E drive works.

What interests me at the moment, more so than the energy that could be tapped from the inertial field, is understanding how an object can rise without expelling propellant, or being flung by a mass driver, climbing a tether, or some other commonly available device.

Again blazotron suggests that momentum is conserved "immediately"  Is it thought that there is a finite speed, say c, that governs the speed of propagation of conserved momentum?  Is this the area of GRT which needs modification?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 04:29 PM
Okay.  Simple explanation: "push heavy, pull light."

Given you can temporarily fluctuate mass, if you push it in one direction when it is heavy, and pull it in the opposite direction when it is light, you generate thrust.  It's that simple.  This process, that turns mere M-E into authentic thrust is what is commonly referred to in our context as "rectification" and it is this rectification that would not normally occur in nature.  M-E should.  Thrust should not because it requires some intelligence added to the naturally occurring phenomena of M-E.

Now if you don't get the "push heavy, pull light" description, you need to go back to Newton's laws and do what it takes to understand things like reaction motors.  Reaction motors throw things overboard.  When after you push heavy, the mass fluctuates light, it is as if you had thrown the heavy mass overboard.  I don't know a way to explain any simpler.  If you don't get it, you need to go back to very basic physics.  You do understand how reaction motors work?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 06:23 PM
Are there links regarding mass fluctuations?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 06:35 PM
Sorry, I don't understand the question.  You're asking for a hyper-link to a paper on fluctuations?  There's been dozens posted in this thread including the one by StarDrive just above.  You said you read these papers months ago.

Mach Effects (M-E) are mass fluctuations.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 06:46 PM
World Wide Web links regarding mass fluctuation from other people than Star-Drive.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 06:55 PM
I think Paul has posted up all the links I know of.  He's much more versed in the literature than I am and knows the history better than I do.  He also understands the physics much better and has been involved more than 3X longer than I have.  I think he's posted up just about everything on the subject.

Why, did you read all those papers?  The one by Andrew Palfreyman and Paul March delivered at STAIF '06 goes into great detail concerning the "push heavy, pull light" explanation.  I can't imagine how you could read that and still ask the questions you do.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 10:02 PM
It's ok.  I'll just do my own research and try to figure out what I can at my own pace.  I'm looking for an easier explanation of this stuff which is kinda lazy, I know.  The math is daunting.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 10:17 PM
I'm not chiding you for not understanding the math or physics.  I don't understand them all either.  Almost everyone on this forum knows their math and physics better than I do.

What I'm trying (and failing) to say is that each of us need to take the words of Dirty Harry to heart.  "A man's got to know his limitations."  When you read the very advanced postgraduate field physics of Jim Woodward, the proper response is not to say "I'll figure it out on my own."  You're not going to ever figure out on your own what a "lagrangian" is, or a "hamiltonian", of what it means to "take the fourth divergence" etc.  Not without very substantial and formal background in math and physics.

There are certainly things you can learn on your own and I am always supportive of being a student of life.  But you can't always demand and expect an explanation, when the nature of the answer is beyond your ability to apprehend.  So sometimes it really has to be enough to understand "push heavy, pull light."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 07/01/2009 10:24 PM
for the record, i love this thread.
I'm not attempting to read the papers. Just following the discourse. Fascinating. And you've said we'll know a 'this might just work' answer in just 2 years, fingers crossed?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 10:56 PM
I think we already know it works.  If you understand the significance of the rotator data, you know that certainly there is no other explanation of those findings other than M-E.  I think Jim took a year apart from study of thrusters just to prove the science behind the thrusters and it worked.  Certainly we need independent replications before people will pay much action, but I think the rotator data stands on its own for now.

Paul March is set to run his high frequency MLT in the next month or so.  This is serious risk work because he's operating way into wormhole territory where current theory cannot make real predictions.  Paul is going to be tying for something like a 3,000,000 % mass fluctuation and remember, wormhole territory starts with 100% fluctuation.  If Paul's thruster works at all, it could produce thrust on the level of what is required for a WarpStar like craft--high enough thrust efficiency for building "1 gee solution" spacecraft that can drop the cost of all space transportation many, many orders magnitude and make human exploitation of our entire planetary system quickly achievable.  There will still be many issues to work out, like the thrust die-off issue, but I would not be surprised if Paul's current design, using PTFE instead of a ceramic dielectric, doesn't suffer those die-off issues at all.  Also, Paul's design is a pre "bulk acceleration conjecture" design meaning it was designed before we understood the significance of large bulk accelerations in the dielectric.  His design does not provide these very large accelerations so there is an excellent chance that it will work but work much less dramatically than hoped.

Jim will be returning to thruster studies with the UFG design in September.  It is at least possible he will have thrust results by the end of September but given how these things normally go, it may take a few months longer.  This is a less risk approach than Paul March's because Jim is working outside wormhole territory, meaning dm<m or <100% mass fluctuation.  His theory is able to make real predictions for the kind of thrusts he should see, rather than the spitballing predictions Paul is looking at; so the level of pure science to be learned from Jim's approach is significantly higher, even though the utility of his thruster design, thrust magnitude and thrust efficiency is significantly lower.

There will also be refinements in the rotator experiment this coming year.  Jim is planning on a new generation of rotator that can give answers to whether the effect scales parametrically based upon DC offset as is predicted.  That will be important in understanding the effect better and in providing new engineering options in the future.

So all this could happen in much less time then the 2 years you're asked about, but who knows?  These things are hard, VERY HARD to do; and there are always curve balls and set backs to cope with.  But my guess is we'll see both convincing and compelling evidence from one if not two labs before this coming year is out.  If either Jim or Paul get decent results by December, I'd expect them to be publishing and presenting at SPESIF in February.

And then there's Andrew Palfreyman who sounds like he might do another build. . .very exciting if Andrew can scavenge up the time for some new VHF experiments or perhaps another rotator.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/02/2009 01:22 AM
World Wide Web links regarding mass fluctuation from other people than Star-Drive.

I assume you mean non-relativistic mass fluctuation, otherwise thousands of links would be relevant. Also the other garden variety of electron mass fluctuations and so on.

I'll repost this earlier link, it doesn't deal with Cooper pairs so much but the references for the relevant researchers' previous work are there. (Tate is her name, IIRC). Note that the theoretical basis for this is very weak, as Star-Drive says. The fact that they record an acceleration of opposite sign to that predicted shows it.

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/02/2009 05:17 AM
Lampy, I think this is old work.  IIRC, Martin did this experiement and got interesting results.  Then as a control, he replaced the superconducting niobium ring with aluminum and got the same result.  That means the experiment is terribly flawed somehow.  That's what controls are for.  There was a supposition I heard a year or so ago, that perhaps the effect was caused by the cryogen, but that supposition didn't fly with the three groups who had planned replications and they all cancelled.  Martin did not present new results this last February (as he's accustomed to) and so far as I know, he does not have a working theory or explanation for his supposed test results.

If you want, I can write Eric Davis who would know more, and I can write Martin if you like, but if there were something on the horizon here, I think I would have heard about it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/03/2009 03:46 AM
A cryogen explanation sounds interesting. It would best be explained by quantum theories; Robert L. Forward's last paper dealt with proposals along QVF lines.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 02:52 AM
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.  For the same thrust VASIMR weighs much more, requires much more power and requires propellant--as compared to the MLT Paul March tested in 2005.

Obviously, we can't take those test numbers from 2005 as gospel because they were never verified and never run with the appropriate controls, such as running in vacuum.  And this is why we need independent verification before we can talk meaningfully about comparisons like this, but given those figures VASIMR is not even in the same ballpark.  If the MLT or UFG deliver, VASIMR is dead on arrival.

Same with any propellant drive.  I looked back in this thread for the figures StarDrive shared about the 2.2 Mhz MLT from 2005 but I'm not finding them.  I remember they came up with regard to comparison to GOCE's ion thrusters.  That experiment from 4 years ago was showing results vastly beyond what GOCE has to offer and I think even beyond Deep Space 1.  Maybe someone can find it or I can coax Paul March back to this thread. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MichaelF on 07/15/2009 03:46 AM
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

In many cases, and I think this is one, the Soviets were right: "Best is the enemy of good enough".  I think we can work with VASIMR (if not current rockets) until a better candidate emerges (and matures).  Certainly we shouldn't wait for it/them.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/15/2009 03:47 AM
GI Thruster:

I've been busy, but since you need some MLT verses VASIMR data here it is in a nutshell.  The VX-200 has a thrust to power efficiency of ~1.0 Newton per 50.0kW of input power or inversely it's 2.0x10^-5 N/Watt.  The Mach-2MHz demonstrated a 5x10^-3 N/7 watts input or 7.14x10^-4 N/Watt.  That is already a factor of 7.14x10^-4 / 2.0x10^-5 = 35.71 times more energy efficient than a optimized conventional electrodynamic ionic rocket design.  Yes, the MLT's lifetime was only 15 minutes of runtime verses the weeks to months required, but it gives one an idea of where these gravinertial thrusters can go once we fully understand and optimize the material science for them.  In other words, 1.0 Newton per Watt G/I field based MLTs and/or UFGs will be buildable in the long term.  The question is how long will it take to get there and that depends on how much time and effort we can throw into their development.

BTW, propellantless drive is a misnomer IMO.  Instead, they should be called a recycled propellant drive since they require a small amount of mass for these mass fluctuations to occur in that is recycled for reuse after every excitation cycle is competed, in much the same way a piston is reused on every rotational cycle of an internal combustion engine. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 03:53 AM
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

In many cases, and I think this is one, the Soviets were right: "Best is the enemy of good enough".  I think we can work with VASIMR (if not current rockets) until a better candidate emerges (and matures).  Certainly we shouldn't wait for it/them.

I haven't seen a spacecraft design for mars transit using VASIMR that didn't include a fission reactor.  I'd love to believe someone somewhere can convince POTUS to support flying a fission reactor to Mars but somehow I'm not quite there. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 03:55 AM
GI Thruster:

I've been busy, but since you need some MLT verses VASIMR data here it is in a nutshell.  The VX-200 has a thrust to power efficiency of ~1.0 Newton per 50.0kW of input power or inversely it's 2.0x10^-5 N/Watt.  The Mach-2MHz demonstrated a 5x10^-3 N/7 watts input or 7.14x10^-4 N/Watt.  That is already a factor of 7.14x10^-4 / 2.0x10^-5 = 35.71 times more energy efficient than a optimized conventional electrodynamic ionic rocket design.  Yes, the MLT's lifetime was only 15 minutes of runtime verses the weeks to months required, but it gives one an idea of where these gravinertial thrusters can go once we fully understand and optimize the material science for them.  In other words, 1.0 Newton per Watt G/I field based MLTs and/or UFGs will be buildable in the long term.  The question is how long will it take to get there and that depends on how much time and effort we can throw into their development.

BTW, propellantless drive is a misnomer IMO.  Instead, they should be called a recycled propellant drive since they require a small amount of mass for these mass fluctuations to occur in that is recycled for reuse after every excitation cycle is competed, in much the same way a piston is reused on every rotational cycle of an internal combustion engine. 


And do you have any relative mass/thrust numbers?  I think VASIMR is around 300 kg for 5 N thrust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MichaelF on 07/15/2009 03:58 AM
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

In many cases, and I think this is one, the Soviets were right: "Best is the enemy of good enough".  I think we can work with VASIMR (if not current rockets) until a better candidate emerges (and matures).  Certainly we shouldn't wait for it/them.

I haven't seen a spacecraft design for mars transit using VASIMR that didn't include a fission reactor.  I'd love to believe someone somewhere can convince POTUS to support flying a fission reactor to Mars but somehow I'm not quite there. . .

Since any manned mission to Mars perforce requires a fission reactor along anyway (for surface operations)....might as well go for two.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/15/2009 04:06 AM
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."

VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

Ummm, the 1.0 N/W, ~100,000 kg Warpstar-II using solar powered regenertive fuel cells could easily make it from Earth to Mars in 2-to-5 days at 1.0 gee all the way with the transit times dependent on where the Earth is relative to Mars in their respective orbits at the start of the trip.  I'll grant VASIMR uses know physics and has a large developmental headstart when compared to the G/I drives, but it is a VERY power hungry propulsion technology requiring 200+ Megawatt electrical nuclear generators produing just 5,000 Newton of thrust to make that 39 day trip time for a manned mission to Mars.  And even if it takes another decade to perfect the MLTs to the 1.0 N/W level, we will still leave the VASIMR venue in the stardust when it is just finishing up its first Mars runs in say twenty years...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/15/2009 04:21 AM
GI Thruster:

I've been busy, but since you need some MLT verses VASIMR data here it is in a nutshell.  The VX-200 has a thrust to power efficiency of ~1.0 Newton per 50.0kW of input power or inversely it's 2.0x10^-5 N/Watt.  The Mach-2MHz demonstrated a 5x10^-3 N/7 watts input or 7.14x10^-4 N/Watt.  That is already a factor of 7.14x10^-4 / 2.0x10^-5 = 35.71 times more energy efficient than a optimized conventional electrodynamic ionic rocket design.  Yes, the MLT's lifetime was only 15 minutes of runtime verses the weeks to months required, but it gives one an idea of where these gravinertial thrusters can go once we fully understand and optimize the material science for them.  In other words, 1.0 Newton per Watt G/I field based MLTs and/or UFGs will be buildable in the long term.  The question is how long will it take to get there and that depends on how much time and effort we can throw into their development.

BTW, propellantless drive is a misnomer IMO.  Instead, they should be called a recycled propellant drive since they require a small amount of mass for these mass fluctuations to occur in that is recycled for reuse after every excitation cycle is competed, in much the same way a piston is reused on every rotational cycle of an internal combustion engine. 


And do you have any relative mass/thrust numbers?  I think VASIMR is around 300 kg for 5 N thrust.

The thrust to weight (T/W) ratio for the VASIMR per your data is 5.0 N / 300 kg = 0.0167 N/kg.  The Mach-2MHz T/W was 5x10^-3 N / 0.145 kg = 0.0345 N/kg that inlcuded its steel Faraday shiled but did not include its 3.8 MHz, 20W RF power supply.  I'm pretty sure that the noted 300 kg for the VX-200 VASIMR does NOT inlcude its 200 kW power supply either...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/15/2009 05:25 AM
MichaelF, you said "colonial program" and "just as effective".

I don't think anyone is proposing holding off the initial exploratory missions until long-lived, high-T/W, 1 newton per watt Mach-effect drives are ready.  They may never be, and VASIMR works now.

But if such devices really existed, I could modify my car to go to Mars.  There's probably enough room inside for an advanced spacesuit with a water supply and a small atmosphere regenerator hooked to it.  A spinner (ie: a self-powered Mach-effect engine hooked to an alternator) could easily generate the 20 horsepower or so required for 1 gee, and at 1 gee the trip could take less than 40 hours (not counting the time spent chasing the planet because my car doesn't have a flight computer and I'd just have to aim at the red dot and watch the clock.  Oh, wait, the clock doesn't work - better get that fixed...).  If I were guaranteed access to a hab with food, air, and a toilet once I got there, I just might do it.

Now imagine what a vehicle specifically engineered for the job could be like.  How about a 100,000-ton bulk freighter or a 50,000-ton passenger liner, taking off from Earth and landing on Mars 2-5 days later, with no in-space docking/undocking maneuvers and no microgravity?

That's how much difference this could make in the long term (ie: colonization time frame).  There's no comparison between VASIMR and advanced Mach-effect technology in terms of utility, assuming of course that the Mach-effect engines actually work as well as the proponents hope...

If M-E drives never get beyond the currently-reported levels of thrust efficiency, the improvement over VASIMR is of course significantly less.  If it turns out that robust M-E engines need to have a very low T/W, a VASIMR might actually have an advantage overall, at least for shorter trips like Earth<->Mars.  But it's far too early to assume that sort of thing, especially since a (short-lived, not rigorously isolated) experimental thruster seems to have already shown superior numbers on both counts...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 05:58 PM
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

In many cases, and I think this is one, the Soviets were right: "Best is the enemy of good enough".  I think we can work with VASIMR (if not current rockets) until a better candidate emerges (and matures).  Certainly we shouldn't wait for it/them.

I haven't seen a spacecraft design for mars transit using VASIMR that didn't include a fission reactor.  I'd love to believe someone somewhere can convince POTUS to support flying a fission reactor to Mars but somehow I'm not quite there. . .

Since any manned mission to Mars perforce requires a fission reactor along anyway (for surface operations)....might as well go for two.



Hey, I'm all for a nuclear fleet or reusable planetary transit vehicles.

Maybe the reason there never seem to be serious discussions about human Mars exploration is we can't start with this very sensible requirement, space fission; as a given.  Maybe what we need to do is attack the issue directly and openly in public and say we're stuck here unless we can use nukes in space? 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 07/18/2009 06:42 PM
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

This isn't quite so. Beyond the trip time, you need to consider the time and cost of assembling a VASIMR interplanetary vessel in orbit. This is a project in the order of building the ISS without having the benefit of the shuttle for heavy loads. So it will be twice as hard, and likely twice as much construction time, which of course increases the odds of it being cancelled before completion by a factor of ten.

Conversely a ME Thruster driven vessel would be buildable on earths surface akin to building a shuttle orbiter or ocean going vessel in an industrial setting. It would be buildable for a 200-600 million dollars, at most, versus 100 billion for a VASIMR ship. The ME thruster driven vessel would launch from earths surface, travel to Mars, land, be refuelled via an ISRU fuel depot sent by chemical rockets on a slow-boat trajectory years previously, and make the return trip.

Carrying a 100,000 lb cargo each trip, it could put a million lbs of cargo and colonists on Mars in the time it takes VASIMR to complete one trip with four astronauts and a lander, spending a month on the surface.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 07/18/2009 06:48 PM
a ME Thruster driven vessel would be buildable on earths surface akin to building a shuttle orbiter or ocean going vessel in an industrial setting. It would be buildable for a 200-600 million dollars, at most, versus 100 billion for a VASIMR ship.
You mean this rocket here will cost 100 billion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj53rVWK5z0
(http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 07/18/2009 06:59 PM
a ME Thruster driven vessel would be buildable on earths surface akin to building a shuttle orbiter or ocean going vessel in an industrial setting. It would be buildable for a 200-600 million dollars, at most, versus 100 billion for a VASIMR ship.
You mean this rocket here will cost 100 billion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj53rVWK5z0
(http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)



At a very minimum, yes.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 07/18/2009 07:06 PM
And on the other hand with a M-E MLT you can liftoff from the ground, go into space, land on other planets, and lifotff again with the same vehicle, right? :)  At the cost of ~half percent of the whole VASIMR....
 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/18/2009 07:24 PM
be refuelled via an ISRU fuel depot sent by chemical rockets on a slow-boat trajectory years previously

If you can take off from Earth's surface using M-E engines, the thrust efficiency should be high enough for efficient power generation using spinners.  If it's not, chemical fuels won't get you to Mars on a 1 gee trajectory...  and nuclear wouldn't need refueling that soon...

Are people afraid of the spinner idea because it seems so much like a perpetual-motion machine of the first kind?  Or is there really a reason why it wouldn't work?

[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind - but that would tend to tell against either the whole M-E thruster concept or the Second Law itself...  I really should either work through the cosmic thermodynamics or shut up about this one...]

As regards a VASIMR-based MTV, if we get either Ares V or Jupiter, or even Not-Shuttle-C, it shouldn't take that long or be that expensive.  Launching it in 12-metre-wide 100-ton chunks would be a lot easier than doing it in 5-metre-wide 20-ton chunks...  and the result should be reusable in any case...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/18/2009 10:02 PM
"Are people afraid of the spinner idea because it seems so much like a perpetual-motion machine of the first kind?  Or is there really a reason why it wouldn't work?"

People don't talk about it for the same reasons it is anathema to use the term "anti-gravity."  It immediately turns off folks from listening.  (BTW, M-E thrusters are not "anti-gravity" so there are practical reasons to avoid the use of the term.)

Its true that if we have a very high thrust efficiency M-E thruster it can be attached to a generator and we have power, but that sort of efficiency is still speculative.  Now if we take the test results of Paul March as indicative of what we can make work, then we ought to be able to have that sort of efficiency and we won't need to refuel an M-E driven craft at all.  It will be rangeless.  We're a long way from that sort of development, one supposes; but one never quite knows what will work better than expected.

Remember, one of the keys to thrust and thrust efficiency is frequency.  Running at higher frequencies might give us the efficiencies we're all hoping for which is why Paul March is experimenting here despite M-E theory does not make predictions as to how much thrust he ought to see.  If we can suppose the linear transition through wormhole territory that Paul and Andrew Palfreyman have supposed in their extrapolations of thrust efficiencies in wormhole territory, then we certainly can see the kinds of efficiencies we're hoping for.  As always though, the proof is in experiment.  What we see there is what we get.

But in general, Mike is right.  If you can build a craft that can fly from the surface of the Earth to another planet and return without throwing away parts or burning fuel, your costs drop exponentially for all space transport as well as for craft construction--just what we need for our emancipation from this planet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Eric_S on 07/19/2009 12:47 AM
[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind

No I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/19/2009 01:01 AM
All right, I'll tone it down a bit...  Polywell would probably have higher power density anyway...

I suppose it's a bit like Direct - if you started by saying that a few dozen undercover freedom fighters have an idea for a launch system that's twice as good as what NASA chose, and that NASA management is trying to suppress them and is producing bogus analysis data to discredit the idea...  well...

Still waiting for results on a number of fronts - Direct, Polywell, Skylon/SABRE, M-E thrusters...  all low-hanging fruit, one final showdown with physics away from making the world a better place...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MichaelF on 07/19/2009 04:20 AM
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

This isn't quite so. Beyond the trip time, you need to consider the time and cost of assembling a VASIMR interplanetary vessel in orbit. This is a project in the order of building the ISS without having the benefit of the shuttle for heavy loads. So it will be twice as hard, and likely twice as much construction time, which of course increases the odds of it being cancelled before completion by a factor of ten.



That does not appear to be the case.  In fact, it's probably the least efficient way to do anything.

We wouldn't be "constructing" anything in LEO.  EOR (similar to the Orion/EDS) of a propulsion/reactor module, a hab module and a descent module* would do quite nicely.

Since the goal is to get people to martian surface, one-way, it works quite nicely.


*-depending on how you like it, the hab module could be the descent module.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/19/2009 06:32 AM
[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind

No I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.

That's a sensible attitude.  I'm curious what you make of the test results of the rotator back last April or so (posted in this thread.)  I am still a bit shocked there has been no real response from academia or USG.  Even the skeptics are silent.  I don't get it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 07/19/2009 11:04 PM
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

This isn't quite so. Beyond the trip time, you need to consider the time and cost of assembling a VASIMR interplanetary vessel in orbit. This is a project in the order of building the ISS without having the benefit of the shuttle for heavy loads. So it will be twice as hard, and likely twice as much construction time, which of course increases the odds of it being cancelled before completion by a factor of ten.



That does not appear to be the case.  In fact, it's probably the least efficient way to do anything.

We wouldn't be "constructing" anything in LEO.  EOR (similar to the Orion/EDS) of a propulsion/reactor module, a hab module and a descent module* would do quite nicely.

Since the goal is to get people to martian surface, one-way, it works quite nicely.


*-depending on how you like it, the hab module could be the descent module.

Lets look at the VSE's planned budget for their Mars plan. Even before a single Mars mission is planned, much more than my estimates merely for the constellation development and the moon shots. By comparison, the ISS has cost some $34 billion.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21720.pdf
"What Are the Costs and Other Details? The Bush Administration has not
provided a total cost estimate for the President’s initiative, or specific plans on how to implement it. As noted, NASA’s “sand chart” suggests that $150-170 billion would be spent between FY2004 and FY2020. NASA has estimated the cost for returning humans to the Moon by 2020 at $64 billion — $24 billion to build and operate the CEV from
FY2004-2020, plus $40 billion for FY2011-2020 to build the lunar lander portion of that vehicle, a new launch vehicle, and operations. The cost of robotic missions are not included. A September 2004 Congressional Budget Office [http://www.cbo.gov] report cautioned that, based on historical trends at NASA, the actual cost could be much higher."

Note the JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer) would have used a VASIMR propulsion system, scaled down from a manned sized model, and was budgeted to cost $10 billion and would have been assembled in orbit.

So it really doesnt matter whether you choose a chemical based Orion mission or a nuclear/plasma VASIMR mission, the costs will be astronomical.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/20/2009 03:12 AM
Those are development and program costs.  It's important to distinguish them from incremental mission costs, especially when the mission isn't a one-off (hopefully we'll be visiting Mars a fair bit, and a reusable VASIMR MTV - or even an expendable one, although a nuclear-powered plasma rocket isn't really something I'd like to throw away after one use - would most certainly not cost $1e11 per mission).

Besides, those costs are hardly astronomical.  Obama just spent ten times that bailing out a bunch of bankers.  Canada's (!) attempt at bailing out GM cost more than JIMO.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/20/2009 03:58 AM
[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind

No I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.

That's a sensible attitude.  I'm curious what you make of the test results of the rotator back last April or so (posted in this thread.)  I am still a bit shocked there has been no real response from academia or USG.  Even the skeptics are silent.  I don't get it.

G/I Thruster:

Where did Dr. Woodward publish his latest rotary mass fluctuation experimental results?  Jim's February 2009 SPESIF report was at best an introduction to this body of work without the final data set.  And truth be known, the electrostrictive effect has yet to be fully resolved in the eyes of the skeptics.  So Jim's results won't get noticed until he can get his final results published in a first-tier peer-reviewed journal like Science, Nature, or Physics Review.  And he had better have an iron glad case in place on separating the electrostrictive effect from the mass fluctuation effect before he tries publishing in those venues.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/20/2009 04:54 PM
Star-Drive, here's the link to the post of Jim's SPESIF paper, posted in this thread, pg. 20, post # 298:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.285

here's the link to the first of the vids, anyone wanting more can go back and read pp.20-22 or so in this thread:

http://www.zshare.net/video/59506760a6754bd2/

I seriously doubt Jim will bother with publishing for peer review.  He publishes each year at STAIF/SPECIF and has already published for review the pure theory more than a decade ago.  (The differences between first and second tear review are irrelevant here--they're like the differences between a PhD from an ivy league school and a PhD from a state university--no one cares about the distinction except those who hold the ivy league degrees.  What people care about is the quality of the program which can be good or poor at any school.)  IMHO, there is next to nothing to be gained by continuing to publish beyond the simple efforts he's making to keep people up to date.  The proof is really in the experiment and peer review does not particularly motivate for independent replication.  It has other, quite distinct functions.

IMHO, the peer review process is what is required to properly vet theory.  That was done a decade ago.  What Jim is doing the last few years is what is required to properly vet experiment.  Its up to academia to respond or not.  As I said before the first rotator experiment was started, there is a huge difference between convincing and compelling evidence.  The rotator produces convincing evidence but it is not compelling because it is not thrust.  If you want to compel the people with the purses to action, you need to produce lots of thrust.  That seems to me a much more worthy goal than publishing.

One other observation on this topic but from a broader perspective: though independent replication is what is generally accepted as the gold standard for doing science (as opposed to doing technology which does not require this--hence the standards for Technology Readiness Levels) such replication historically is very unreliable.  It is most common for independent replications to fail to follow the same procedures and protocols as the experiment they're "replicating" so that they are not replications at all.  So, in the case of the ORNL experiment, those physicists and engineers were instructed to avoid doing what they did but they did it anyway and received questionable results.  That was not a replication: those engineers were trying to take an enormous leap past experiment to that point, despite they proved they did not understand the field physics involved.

So peer review has a place but it generally concerns theory, and replication has a place but it generally needs to be restricted to real replication to be useful.  Most replications add so much original stuff they are not replications at all.  If you'll remember, my reports from STAIF '08, none of the three replications planned for Martin Tajmar's test results of that time remotely resembled his test apparatus.  (None were built so it doesn't matter.)  That's a result of arrogance, IMHO.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/24/2009 03:49 AM
It's thrust Jim... but not as we know it.

I've been wondering if this Mach effect dampens or even cancels gravitational radiation. Gravitational radiation is produced by aspherically accelerating masses... Mach effects operate in the acceleration differential regime, and the "waves" propagate at 90 degrees to each other. I wonder if there's a Maxwellian comparison to this? Yeah, yeah I know, quadropolar vs. dipolar... just thinking out loud...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/24/2009 04:21 AM
Lamy:

It all depends on whether the G/I field excitation wavelengths have a bearing on the issue of gravitational radiation.  If one views gravity as a longwave consequence of G/I radiation, and by longwave I mean the resonant cavity wavelength determined by the size of the causally connected universe, then the G/I based inertia thruster may also turn out to be a gravity beam projector as well...  Deck plate gravity generators anyone?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/08/2009 03:32 AM
Quote from: GI-Thruster on 08/04/2009 08:36 PM
I'm not certain why this needs a new thread or what the topic is.  There is a field propulsion thread if you look down the list.  Those who think propellantless propulsion violates the known laws of physics are simply misinformed.  Mach's physics is not "new" physics--its century old physics, the stuff Einstein used to create his General Relativity.

GI-Thruster, this particular statement arose in the other thread. I responded to it that it's not true:
1. Mach's effects (distant matter/energy/metric affecting local matter/energy/metric "instantaneously") are not confirmed yet, it's only an interesting conjecture,
2. Einstein did not use them in SR and/or GR.

No one disputed my post there.

Yet, you are again claiming it. You really think that GR includes Machian effects? Point me to one.

-------------------------------------------

GoSpaceX, I was writing you a lengthy reply just when Andy was cleaning up the threads here and the post was lost.  Let me just answer quickly:

1) Mach's Principle has never been "confirmed" is in the eye of the beholder.  I'm sure you know how science works.  There is certainly great evidence for this found in this last year's work by Jim Woodward which you can find in this thread posted back in April or May.

2) Einstien made great use of Mach's Principle to create GR.  For the historical and philosophical background on this you'll enjoy this text:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249700226&sr=8-1
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/08/2009 03:21 PM
G/I Thruster:

The book URL you found on Mach's prinicple is a great find, thanks much for posting it!

As to the comments from the hardnosed engineers like "Jim" and others of his stripe on this forum who want to discuss only near term engineering ideas and results that they understand and/or are comfortable with, I have to point out to them that if we had only taken that approach 150 years ago, we would still be making horse drawn buggies and buggy whips and could still be communicating over the 1840s style telegraphs.  However, some scientific renegades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who are now household names, developed a few theories like relativity, modern atomic theory, and quantum mechanics along with the data needed to support them.  Concepts and data I might add that ushered in the atomic and quantum age that has been developed during the 20th Century which in turn ushered in the age of computer.  We also developed during this time period under the duress of two world wars, the old Chinese invention called the chemical rocket to near its theoretical maximum capabilities and started dabbling with nuclear powered variants of same until we lost our collective nerve sometime in the 1970s where we stopped our explorations and burned our Apollo Moon fleet like the Chinese did with their naval fleet of exploration some five centuries earlier.

Well, now it's the beginning of the 21th century and human spaceflight is still stuck in low earth orbit because the chemical rockets that have brought us this far don’t have much more performance capabilities left in them to be exploited, and therefore for every few percentage points improvement in their performance that we gain from now on, we have to expend exponentially increasing efforts/cost to do so, while the safety of such highly stressed systems goes down proportionally as well.  (Remember that each of the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) while running, already run at a power level of ~8 GigaWatts in a 7,000 pound package or 1.42 MegaWatt / pound!) 

We are now very much to the point where if we want/need to go beyond low earth orbit in person and in large numbers, we have to look to a transportation technology with much better performance and safety capabilities than ANY chemical rocket can provide, and do so at an affordable cost.  That means if we are serious about becoming a space fairing civilization where millions of people will one day be making the rest of solar system their place of business and their homes, we have to start now developing atomic powered rockets and/or gravinertial field propulsion systems that will have much higher efficiency and safety numbers than any chemical rocket system can ever muster.  And if we want a safer less politically charged solution than nuclear fission powered rockets bring to the table, then the development of fusion powered gravinertial field propulsion is the only way to go, especially if we want to pursue interstellar flights in the future.  For me this Advanced Concept forum IS the place to discuss these later topics, while we leave the rest of the NASASpaceflight.com forum to the more near-term chemical rocket topics so near and dear to the folks like Jim the rocket scientist.   
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/08/2009 04:52 PM
GoSpaceX:

You mention to G/I Thruster the following comments about Mach's principle:

“GI-Thruster, this particular statement arose in the other thread. I responded to it that it's not true:

1. Mach's effects (distant matter/energy/metric affecting local matter/energy/metric "instantaneously") are not confirmed yet, it's only an interesting conjecture,
2. Einstein did not use them in SR and/or GR.

No one disputed my post there.

Yet, you are again claiming it. You really think that GR includes Machian effects? Point me to one.”


OK, we both need to read the Mach-Principle book that G/I Thruster pointed out in his last post, but in the meantime, I was conversing with Jim Woodward on this question yesterday of whether Mach’s Principle was integrated into the original 1915 GRT by Einstein or not and here is Jim’s reply, which he just gave me permission to post here:


From Dr. James F. Woodward, August 08, 2009

"The issue of whether Mach's principle is contained in 1915 GR depends on how the principle is defined and whether or not one requires that initial/boundary conditions are considered part of the theory.  If all that GR is considered to be is the field equations, then one can make statements like that your correspondent makes.  It is now well-known, if not as widely appreciated as it should be, though, that Mach's principle -- which is one of Einstein's formative principles in creating GR -- is contained in 1915 GR.  That is, no modification of the 1915 field equations is required to encompass Mach's principle.  What is required is the stipulation of suitable boundary and/or initial conditions for it to be shown explicitly that the inertia of local objects is caused by the distribution of chiefly distant matter.  Derek Raine did this explicitly in his doctoral work for Dennis Sciama back in the mid-'70s.

The reason why this has not become textbook stuff (and your correspondent can make the sort of statements he does without looking like a complete jackass) is that while Mach's principle is part of 1915 GR with boundary/initial conditions that correspond to the universe as we see it, it comes with a price.  Either one must accept that, at least as far as inertia is concerned, GR is an "action at a distance" interaction (to account for the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces) -- see Hoyle and Narlikar's book Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology (Freeman, 1974) -- or inertial effects must be considered to be contained in the "constraint" equations on initial data (which are elliptic, rather than hyperbolic, and "propagate" instantaneously as a result) -- see Ciufolini and Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia (Princeton, 1995).

Wheeler hardly mentions Raine at all -- presumably because Raine didn't include the energies associated with gravity waves in his analysis -- and perhaps because Wheeler, despite being an early advocate (with Feynman) of action at a distance electrodynamics, seems to have regarded action at a distance as a serious theoretical consideration as silly.

Actually, of course, who believes what, and why, is irrelevant as far as the physical reality of Mach effects is concerned.  The ONLY relevant question is: are inertial reaction forces produced by the gravitational action of chiefly distant matter (in GR or any other theory you happen to choose to believe in)?  The answer to this question is clear.  They are.

This was shown by Sciama decades ago.  And the same result can be demonstrated for GR conditions using Nordtvedt's formulation of the PPN formalism for linear accelerative frame dragging.  Once you have accepted the fact that inertial forces are produced by the gravitational action of chiefly distant matter, then the rest of the derivation of transient Mach effects follows inexorably.  Whether your corresponded chooses to understand and appreciate this is irrelevant to the facts of the nature of reality.  Science, ultimately, is not a beauty contest determined by fashion or wishful thinking.  Experiments, not the opinions of others, will eventually decide the issues involved.

I suggest that you not waste your time on trying to convince others to take Mach's principle Mach effects seriously.  People get silly theoretical fixations, and it is impossible to get them to abandon them.

As Planck once said, his critics didn't change their minds.  They died.
Building something that works is the only thing that warrants serious attention."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 08/11/2009 12:20 AM
... Either one must accept that, at least as far as inertia is concerned, GR is an "action at a distance" interaction (to account for the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces) -- see Hoyle and Narlikar's book Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology (Freeman, 1974) -- or inertial effects must be considered to be contained in the "constraint" equations on initial data (which are elliptic, rather than hyperbolic, and "propagate" instantaneously as a result) -- see Ciufolini and Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia (Princeton, 1995).

Wheeler hardly mentions Raine at all -- presumably because Raine didn't include the energies associated with gravity waves in his analysis -- and perhaps because Wheeler, despite being an early advocate (with Feynman) of action at a distance electrodynamics, seems to have regarded action at a distance as a serious theoretical consideration as silly. ...
Instantaneous-action-at-a-distance is the kiss of death of a physical theory, and rightly so.

Quote
... I have to point out to them that if we had only taken that approach 150 years ago, we would still be making horse drawn buggies and buggy whips and could still be communicating over the 1840s style telegraphs. ...
Physicists who rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance made those great advances in the late 1800s. Physics transitioned from the electric+magnetic laws to electromagnetic waves.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 08/11/2009 01:35 AM
Instantaneous-action-at-a-distance is the kiss of death of a physical theory, and rightly so.

Physicists who rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance made those great advances in the late 1800s. Physics transitioned from the electric+magnetic laws to electromagnetic waves.


So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.

Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 08/11/2009 04:37 AM
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.

Quote
Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance.

Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 08/11/2009 04:56 AM
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.

Quote
Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance.

Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?


Explain how light refracts without action at a distance. Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time", i.e. the path of refracted light is bent by matter with an index of refraction because the speed of light inside the matter is slower than in air or a vacuum, so light wants to spend as little time travelling slower as possible. He showed that all subatomic reactions work both forward and backward in time as well, and that for some quantum interactions, such as entangled photon pairs, action at a distance DOES in fact, happen.

This is all now well established physics and only fools and idiots refuse to recognise the fact that as far as simultaneity, these effects appear to be action at a distance, just as the Mach Effect appears to be so.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/11/2009 05:33 AM
Mikegi, if you want to have a reasonable discussion on this issue, send me a note with your email and I'll forward it to Jim Woodward.  It's bad form to respond to a note that was originally not written to this forum and doesn't allow Dr. Woodward to answer your points.  I think you'd find Jim is very congenial and would take any serious questions seriously.

BTW, are you a physicist?  I ask because I'm a bit stymied that you consider action at a distance the "kiss of death".  We've been looking for gravity waves and gravitons for more than three decades with no success and yet you're so sure they have to exist?  I find the reasoning behind this eludes me.

To the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong here; there is no experimental evidence to date of either gravity waves or gravity particles, but there is evidence for Mach Effects.  Maybe its just me but I want to see physical evidence. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: SimonDM on 08/11/2009 08:38 AM
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
You should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute , specifically about Hilbert, Lorentz (they're called Lorentz transformations, not Einstein transformations) and Poincaré.

Quote from: mlorrey
Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time",
Pierre de Fermat, January 1, 1662

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/11/2009 12:09 PM
mikegi:

"Physicists who rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance made those great advances in the late 1800s. Physics transitioned from the electric+magnetic laws to electromagnetic waves."

As G/I thruster noted, Jim Woodward is the best man to answer your questions, but in the meantime I'll try to point out a few details you havn't discussed.

Since you want to point to James C. Maxwell's 1860s Trieste on electromagnetism (E&M), you might also remember that his E&M propagation solution, speed c = (mu0 * e0)^-½, has two roots in it, not just one, with the positive one being the “normal” forward in time, retarded wave solution, and the other one being the negative root advanced wave solution that implies an E&M wave that propagates backwards in time.  And remember that Maxwell did not toss out that negative root solution.  It was folks like Oliver Heaviside who followed Maxwell that threw out this backwards in time solution as being “unphysical” to them.  However, throwing out that baby in this E&M bathwater may well have been throwing away the keys to the universe.  Luckily, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman picked up Maxwell’s advanced solution results again in the 1940s with their radiation absorber theory, see (http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html ), and then John Cramer used it as the lynch pin of his Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM).  ( http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/ )  Perhaps these approaches to reality may never pan out, or they are just another way to describe a hyperdimensional realm of greater than 4D that we are just starting to sense, but either way, the secrets of gravinertial drives are smack dab in the middle of them.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 08/11/2009 12:25 PM
Hey guys, what about the EM Drive concept? Haven't heard anything here about it. I guess there no advocates for that concept here.

If it's real it could have a near term application.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 08/11/2009 12:33 PM
Quote
To the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong here; there is no experimental evidence to date of either gravity waves or gravity particles, but there is evidence for Mach Effects
The wormhole throat is in fact a hyperspace field, isn't it? Therefore the Mach Effects can be explained extreme well with the hyperspace theory of Kip Thorne.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 08/11/2009 12:59 PM
Star-Drive, GI-Thruster

What's your opinion on Heim's work and theories in regards to quantum gravity forces ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory#Heim.27s_predictions_for_a_quantum_gravity_force
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/burkhard-heim.htm
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 08/11/2009 02:06 PM
BTW, are you a physicist?
Nope, not a physicist. I'm not even a good amateur -- still stuck on the very basics. For example, I have no idea how an old time electromagnetic wave causes an electron to accelerate, much less how an electron "absorbs" a photon. Do you?

Quote
  I ask because I'm a bit stymied that you consider action at a distance the "kiss of death". We've been looking for gravity waves and gravitons for more than three decades with no success and yet you're so sure they have to exist?  I find the reasoning behind this eludes me.
You can use action-at-a-distance (AAAD) when it applies and makes your work easier: short distances and long time scales. EEs do it all this time when we analyze circuits using lumped components like capacitors and inductors responding to low frequencies. It works because the speed of light is so high that any wave effects settle down very quickly compared to the analysis time scale, it is effectively instantaneous. Increase the frequency enough and all sorts of weirdness happens ... until you take into account the finite speed of propagation and use transmission line theory.

If Woodward is proposing some sort of AAAD then I hope he believes that his theory is actually the result of unknown forces that travel at an enormous multiple of the speed of light. I read his stuff a looong time ago and thought it was interesting -- but I'm just as much of a cracked pot as everyone else! The link I have saved no longer appears to work:

http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html

IMHO, most of this is noise. If you want to see where the next "big thing" is more likely to be discovered, you have to look at the more mundane hardcore experimenters like Grischkowsky at OSU:

http://utol.ecen.ceat.okstate.edu/publicat.htm

It's not as exciting as warp drives, photon torpedoes, etc. But I believe that they will eventually discover reproducible experimental results that can't be explained with current physics theories.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/11/2009 04:44 PM
hec asked my opine of the Shawyer EM drive and Marsavian my thoughts on the Heim stuff.  If you read far enough back in this thread you'll find these subjects dealt with in much more detail but in short--I have been retained in the past to survey all this stuff and judge whether it is at the point it should be supported by investors.  The ONLY approach to advanced propulsion I can recommend as "emergent" meaning it both a) is supported by externally and internally consistent, peer-reviewed theory and b) has empirical data in support is Dr. Jim Woodward's theory.  LockMart has done their own study like mine and come to the same conclusion.

IMHO, Shawyer's theory violates conservation and this is why it has been char-broiled in the peer review journals.  Heim's theory relies upon things like gravitons which we have been looking for now for more than 3 decades with no success.  I therefore see little reason to take an interest in Heim.  Also, there are a host of other difficulties with Heim's stuff and IIRC, even some connections with fraud.  But the first is enough for me to lose interest.  Until we find evidence if gravitons, it seems obvious to me Heim is probably wrong.

On the other hand, we do have physical evidence of Mach Effects. . .

Mike, no.  I'm a philosopher, not a physicist; which is why I am wholly dependent upon things like peer review.  Don't leave home without it.   :-)

BTW, Woodward is not proposing anything about AAAD that is not included in General Relativity.  There's no new physics here--it's just a combination of Einstein and Mach with the only novelty being their combination.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 08/11/2009 05:55 PM
GI,

What surprises me is that you guys know Pete at NRO and he won't fund Woodwards effort. He is good at funding crazy ideas with far less emperical evidence to back it than you guys have for yours.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/11/2009 06:28 PM
Looks like we're talking about different Pete's.  The one I thought you were talking about works for USAF at the Pentagon.  Maybe you ought to forward that email to Paul after all.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 08/11/2009 07:18 PM
On the other hand, we do have physical evidence of Mach Effects. . .

Mike, no.  I'm a philosopher, not a physicist; which is why I am wholly dependent upon things like peer review.  Don't leave home without it.   :-)

BTW, Woodward is not proposing anything about AAAD that is not included in General Relativity.  There's no new physics here--it's just a combination of Einstein and Mach with the only novelty being their combination.
I did a quick google search and read through some the experiments. It seems like the numbers are way off and, worse, not even measuring the supposed Mach Effect. The Cramer experiment wasn't "inconclusive", it was a disaster! Properly accounting for all the plain old electromagnetic forces in these experiments is going to be difficult enough, nevermind the small signal you're trying to detect.

Woodward definitely seems to be using AAAD in his theory, both in the quote earlier and in papers on the internet ("non-local momentum transfer" and "advanced waves").

Bad experiments + patents + AAAD = pegged skeptic meter



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/11/2009 09:01 PM
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 08/11/2009 09:40 PM
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with Woodward's theory and even if there is, theories can be updated and changed. The facts still stand, he has a real effect, the theory only helps develop the technology further, that's it's main purpose. The theory does not make the effect any less real.

The critical issue that Woodward has to address so he can get more attention and funding (in my opinion) is to find a away to scale the total output thrust of his devices into the milliNewton range. Trust me this is were you start getting phone calls, visitors and NDA's start flying left and right.

Just my suggestion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/12/2009 02:49 AM
hec, you're spot-on.  This is why Woodward is returning to UFG studies in the Fall.

I think we'll see obvious results by October but I get these futurist projections wrong all the time.  :-)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop on 08/12/2009 04:12 AM
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with Woodward's theory and even if there is, theories can be updated and changed. The facts still stand, he has a real effect, the theory only helps develop the technology further, that's it's main purpose. The theory does not make the effect any less real.
Umm... If the theory is wrong, and the effect is actually due to something else, there's no reason to believe the predictions of the incorrect theory will apply to the correct explanation. Particularly if the actual explanation is some bit of mundane physics that wasn't properly accounted for in the experiment!

mikegi: The pages you mention can be accessed via the Internet Archive http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/12/2009 04:17 AM
Edited due to an uncommon pang of common sense.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 08/12/2009 05:54 AM
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Cramer experiment report:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

Found possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".

======================
March experiment abstract:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321M

The experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.


Hop: thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 08/12/2009 07:41 AM
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised.  I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned.  However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec.  I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.


Any results yet?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 08/12/2009 12:50 PM
Hop,

Like most people you are missing the big picture of what a theory is and what it is really for. I’m certain you view theories as more important that empirical evidence. I’m sure you see a theory as an absolute, when they are work in progress and always in need of refinement. Theories are a human artifact, they are for our benefit not natures or it’s processes.

Case and point; how insects could fly was an aerodynamic mystery that was only recently resolved and yet even with that gap in our theoretical knowledge base insects manage to stay flying and we managed to make airplanes using the same faulty theoretical aerodynamic model.

If a simple and mundane, theory can account for all the empirical facts in the Woodward effect than were is it? The lack of this simple and mundane model makes a strong argument that the effect is unconventional in nature.

And now, we are right back were we started.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/12/2009 01:28 PM
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised.  I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned.  However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec.  I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.


Any results yet?


Nope, I ran into a 52 MHz driver transmitter problem and I'm currently trying to repair or replace it.  It's just another trouble shooting time eater and expense I have to deal with in my spare time...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/12/2009 02:22 PM
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Cramer experiment report:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

Found possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".

======================
March experiment abstract:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321M

The experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.


Mike & Hop:

I have to second hec031 in with this M-E modeling business.  You make the best set of guesses you can with the theoretical model you have available, convert that into a spreadsheet format for easier calculations knowing that some parts of the model like the linearized M-E wormhole predictor is going to be WAY off, make your predictions based on that preliminary design tool, run the experiment, and then see what Mother Nature has to tells us. 

In the case of Jim's and my Faraday can shielded Mach-2MHz running at 3.8 MHz that produced ~5.0 milli-Newtons with 20W of input power with a cap voltage of ~125V- peak, (No ion-wind generation in this case folks!), Andrew P. and my STAIF-2006 M-E spreadsheet model, (See attached report),  under-predicted these recorded results by approximately two orders of magnitude.  Since we linearized the M-E wormhole term results because we don’t have the programming skills and super computers required to compute this very nonlinear relativistic gravitational term, (See: Numerical Relativity at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_relativity ), we were prepared to see something larger than predicted.  Guess what, we did.  That was because we were running well above the calculated M-E  dm/m ratio of 1.0, and in fact for the Mach-2MHz, 3.8 MHz case running at 125V-p, the dm/m = ~3.0.

If we had seen a much lower or zero thrust signature than expected with this Mach-2MHz test article, we could have called it a null test results, but since the tests came back with much larger results than predicted by the linearized M-E wormhole term, we said we needed to fall back and punt on the M-E modeling front, much like John Cramer’s group did with their Machian Guitar test series.  They said their results were inconclusive instead of meaningless because due to technical issues they had to run their final test article at a voltage and test frequency (~1,000V-p at ~220 Hz) that almost assured them that they would get a null results per the linearized M-E model, even though they did unofficially see an M-E signal that was running just above their noise limits.  As conservative as John Cramer is in this venue, that says volumes if you know the details of the test and the academic politics surrounding this kind of research.

BTW, I took special care with this Mach-2MHz test article to resolve all the objections raised with my first unshielded MLT-2004 test article, so except for the issue of not running this test article in a hard vacuum to remove the last vestiges of concern over ion and supersonic wind contributions to the recorded thrust signature, (The test article’s metal Faraday shield took care or the first 99% of those concerns including the EMI issues I ran into on the first test series), I have high confidence that these test results reflect a real effect and NOT a test artifact.   And I’m really not sad that the results were higher than expected because that indicates that we should be able to design and build working M-E thrusters once we figure out a way around the short lifetime issues surrounding the use of the high-k ceramic dielectrics used in these test articles.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/12/2009 03:55 PM
The trouble with these judgements above is not so much that they're uninformed (which they are ) as that they're hasty generalizations.  Lumping together issues like patent, old experiment, reinterpretation of test results, and formulating a position in a couple hours is just about as hasty as one can get.

Cramer considered his test results inconclusive because he saw several ways to improve his test but was not able to make the changes because he ran out of funding.  When the pesos dried up, so did his work.  Rather than look at decade old test results and reinterpret them in a contextual vacuum, better is to look at the most recent work and judge it on its own merits.  This takes time.  If you think you're going to look at a complex issue with complex apparatus and complex data and formulate a useful judgement in a few minutes, you're suffering delusions of grandeur.  I would suggest if anyone can't be bothered to invest the time to understand any experiment, they keep their ignorance to themselves.  This business is tough enough that we don't need to waste our time rebutting folks who haven't even taken the time to understand what's going on around them.

Yah. . .stuff like what's posted in THIS thread last April and May. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/12/2009 04:08 PM
"I have to second hec031 in with this M-E modeling business.  You make the best set of guesses you can with the theoretical model you have available, convert that into a spreadsheet format for easier calculations knowing that some parts of the model like the linearized M-E wormhole predictor is going to be WAY off, make your predictions based on that preliminary design tool, run the experiment, and then see what Mother Nature has to tells us. 

In the case of Jim's and my Faraday can shielded Mach-2MHz running at 3.8 MHz that produced ~5.0 milli-Newtons with 20W of input power with a cap voltage of ~125V- peak, (No ion-wind generation in this case folks!), Andrew P. and my STAIF-2006 M-E spreadsheet model, (See attached report),  under-predicted these recorded results by approximately two orders of magnitude.  Since we linearized the M-E wormhole term results because we don’t have the programming skills and super computers required to compute this very nonlinear relativistic gravitational term, (See: Numerical Relativity at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_relativity ), we were prepared to see something larger than predicted.  Guess what, we did.  That was because we were running well above the calculated M-E  dm/m ratio of 1.0, and in fact for the Mach-2MHz, 3.8 MHz case running at 125V-p, the dm/m = ~3.0. "

This is why especially when working in wormhole territory, we need to be satisfied with qualitative rather than quantitative predictions.  There are far too many variables in all these experiments to make useful thrust level predictions.  For instance, we don't even know the actual mass of the capacitor material we've used in ANY of these experiments.  We don't know the percent of the sinter, or the degree the sinter mitigates piezo and electrostatic effects.  We don't know if hydrostatic effect is linear with voltage or if polarizing the active dielectric affects results.  We only barely know what it is we don't know.

However, we DO know of no other effect than the proposed M-E that is found at the second harmonic and in anti-phase with electrostriction.  The only proposed effect here is M-E.  Now of course as hop suggests, there may be another effect.  But this is how science proceeds--primarily through process of elimination of alternatives.  If someone, anyone wants to propose an alternative explanantion for the rotator results, I suggest they step forward and do so.  To date, there have been no takers.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/12/2009 06:16 PM
G/I Thruster:

"For instance, we don't even know the actual mass of the capacitor material we've used in ANY of these experiments."

Ummm, well we actually do know what the dimensions and mass of the Ceramite 500PF at 15kV, Y5U caps used by Woodward in most of his recent experiments as well as our Mach-2Mhz test article to within 0.001” and a tenth of a gram.  I obtained that information by going to the trouble of stripping off these cap’s epoxy overcoat with MEK solvent, desoldering their #20 AWG wire leads and then measuring their OD and thickness dimensions to within 0.001”, weighing them to within 0.10 grams, then averaging the results for both sets of parameters.  Off the top of my head it turned out that they averaged 0.95cm OD, 0.635" thickness, and ~2.4 grams of active mass per cap, which yielded an as-fired sintered density of ~5.45 grams/cc, which is 5.45/5.6 = 97.3% of their ideal density.  These cap volume and weight figures are then used to calculate the dm/m ratio in the M-E spreadsheets, so I had to have them in hand to make any of these predictions.  I've also performed this procedure for over 20 other caps that Andrew P. and I have tested over the last four years. 

I've also tested for the 500 pF cap's piezoelectric effect response coefficient  and found that the population of 50, 500pF caps so tested followed a Gaussian distribution in their piezoelectric response per a test I devised on the fly.  However, to perform a set of calibrated piezoelectric and electrostrictive response tests, we would have to cough up a lot more coin for the required NIST traceable calibrated test equipment than I have at my disposal.

Bottom line in all this is that the state of these M-E tests are not as qualitive as you imply.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/12/2009 06:24 PM
"Ummm, well we actually do know what the dimensions and mass of the Ceramite 500PF at 15kV, Y5U caps used by Woodward in most of his recent experiments as well as our Mach-2Mhz test article to within 0.001” and a tenth of a gram."

Yes but you don't know what percentage of that mass is BaTiO3, nor the dielectric properties of the sinter.  And as we both know, we're still discovering just how non-linear these caps are, with huge capacitance drop off at high voltage, etc.  Also, they are not marketed for use at high frequency, so the unknowns here compound quickly.

The point is, there are too many guesses for quantitative predictions at this point.  It is because of the mistaken predictions to date that people keep throwing up this issue that your past work found 2 orders magnitude higher thrust than prediction.  Well that was a BAD prediction based upon a BAD model that linearized transition through wormhole territory with only assumptions this would be adequate.  It was obviously NOT adequate.  The error here was to make the quantitative prediction based upon assumption, which in science; is an unwarranted action.

We do not know enough to make quantitative predictions.  Period.

Period with a caveat: while it's a violation of scientific method to make predictions based upon inadequate theory, it is not a violation to design measurement apparatus based upon a "best guess."  So for example, it's quite correct to take your best guess and design a 2 meter pendulum for testing.  That doesn't violate scientific procedure.  You may find that the test item produces too little thrust to get a measurable deflection on the pendulum, but this doesn't invalidate your method, only your protocol; and you can then simply go to a more precise measurement apparatus (which we know is what you have planned for should that need arise.)  So even though "best guesses" are worthless for scientific prediction, they are entirely worthwhile in designing test apparatus.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 09/07/2009 05:45 PM
I have a question. When a starship travels near the speed of light it's speed increases and it's mass as well, proportionally. In that case time dilation is observed in the craft. Now, what would happen if the mass of the vehicle is negative? Will there a negative effect of time dilation occur? I mean - the crew will live several times faster than the observer?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/08/2009 04:32 AM
I have a question. When a starship travels near the speed of light it's speed increases and it's mass as well, proportionally. In that case time dilation is observed in the craft. Now, what would happen if the mass of the vehicle is negative? Will there a negative effect of time dilation occur? I mean - the crew will live several times faster than the observer?

The entirety of the vehicle will never be negative mass. ME thrust does not negate mass, it channels mach effect generated mass changes in a centrifuge to produce thrust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/08/2009 11:56 PM
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.

Quote
Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance.

Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?


Explain how light refracts without action at a distance. Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time", i.e. the path of refracted light is bent by matter with an index of refraction because the speed of light inside the matter is slower than in air or a vacuum, so light wants to spend as little time travelling slower as possible. He showed that all subatomic reactions work both forward and backward in time as well, and that for some quantum interactions, such as entangled photon pairs, action at a distance DOES in fact, happen.

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to point that out. There are some other examples which point this out, but for the time being there's no way to use them to transmit information. QM weirdly seems to preserve causality. Heck, some people are still arguing for really fast speeds of gravity, millions of times c. And what is aspin-2 particle doing travelling faster than light?

Star-Drive also pointed out retrograde signals, part of Maxwell's original equations, and again there's no good reason to dismiss them. Again, action-at-a-distance doesn't work if you're just looking at your 4-D space. But we have no idea how many dimensions we actually live in.

Quote
This is all now well established physics and only fools and idiots refuse to recognise the fact that as far as simultaneity, these effects appear to be action at a distance, just as the Mach Effect appears to be so.

Well, that's a bit harsh, but I guess things like tachyons (or rather, tachyonic fields) are gaining popularity again as solutions for a few theories. It'll be a while yet before it even becomes a really big controversial thing, because right now the effects just don't appear in a direct causative manner. But I gues in QM thinking, the effects ARE there, they just aren't there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/09/2009 12:07 AM
I have a question. When a starship travels near the speed of light it's speed increases and it's mass as well, proportionally. In that case time dilation is observed in the craft. Now, what would happen if the mass of the vehicle is negative? Will there a negative effect of time dilation occur? I mean - the crew will live several times faster than the observer?

The negative mass won't be anywhere near enough to be significant. However M-E effects in an inertially accelerated frame of reference are quite interesting. It would seem to get harder to accelerate (requiring higher driving freq's) as your tau gets higher because the FOAM is moving "faster in time." Or maybe not.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/09/2009 12:18 AM
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Cramer experiment report:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

Found possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".

======================
March experiment abstract:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321M

The experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.


Hop: thanks for the link.

Cramer used a mechanical oscillator, a spring.  The previous experiment by NASA's BPL used exactly the same thing, and as I recall they got similar results. Mechanical oscillators just don't have the responsiveness. I personally think it warrants more serious investigation, but this is what, 5 years now, nothing new from NASA? Subscribe to Prof. Woodward's emailing list, it's very enlightening (no pun intended).


"A net unidirectional and reversible force on the order of +/- 3.14 milli-Newton or 0.069% of the suspended test article mass was recorded by us in our first high frequency 2.2 MHz test article. "

This is nothing like what Cramer et al. report.*

"As a null check of this result, we rotated the Mach
Guitar apparatus from a horizontal orientation to a
vertical one, as shown in figure 10. Now, if a varying
gravitational force is present, it should be
perpendicular to the allowed string displacement.
Thus, we would expect only zero or small excitation of
the oscillator. However, we find that in the 90°
orientation, the excitation of the mechanical oscillator
is qualitatively the same as that shown in figure 9."

Star-Drive's and James Woodward's setups use electromagnetic drivers at far higher freq's. Star-Drive runs his at what, 2MHz for the latest rig?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/09/2009 03:15 AM
The MLT-2004 ran at 2.2 MHz.  The Mach-2 MHz ran at 2.15 or 3.80 MHz. 

Now think about the M-E math model that Andrew Palfreyman developed in our STAIF-2006 paper that indicates that the M-E delta mass density scales with the cube of the drive frequency.  Compared to Cramer's 1,000 Hz maximum operating frequency that indicates that the delta mass density ratio between the Mach Guitar and my Mach-2MHz experiment running at 3.8 MHz for a given drive voltage would be (3.8x10^6 / 1,000)^3 = 54.872x10^9 times larger. 

And yes the Mach-2MHz maximum drive voltage was down around 125 V-p vs the Mach Guitar's 2.0 kV, but even taking that into account and the difference in capacitance, the net effect of operating at 3.8 MHz with the Mach-2MHz vs the Mach-Guitar at 1.0 kHz yielded a net delta mass density ratio increase of ~2.0 million times to work with for the Mach-2MHz.  In other words this HF drive frequency provided a much larger delta mass leverage arm for the MLT's crossed B-field to work on, so HF to VHF drive frequencies is the only way to fly an MLT... 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/10/2009 01:30 PM
It seems to me that the whole point of these things is to NOT conserve momentum. Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 04:22 PM
Yes, you're wrong.  The system has to conserve momentum or it would be nothing more than a bad joke.  The key to understanding how the system conserves momentum is to realize that the entire universe is the system--all of the universe is causally connected through gravinertial force as per Mach's Principle.  It is this connection, chiefly with the farthest matter in the universe; that is what causes inertia.  Given this is so, all gravinertial thrusters and other sorts of Mach Effect technology, rotators, etc.; are harvesting momentum from the rest of the universe.  They are taking advantage of gravinertial flux in and out of the item in question, not unlike how a sail harvests the momentum of the air around it to push a boat.  So to calculate for conservation, you MUST take to account this gravinertial flux.  If you fail to do so, you will certainly think you see a violation of conservation, which is also the case if you fail to account for the wind pressing on a sail.

Gravinertial thrusters are therefore not really best likened to transformers, converting electrical energy to kinetic energy, but rather they are transistors, controlling gravinertial flux.  You absolutely must account for that flux or you will think you are seeing a violation of conservation.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 09/10/2009 04:52 PM
Kinda like how the Apollo spacecraft mysteriously slowed down for a couple of days straight on its trip to the moon, even though it was in hard vacuum.  Draw a box around the spacecraft and you get an unbalanced force.  Include the Earth (and Moon) in the picture and it suddenly makes sense.  Spooky action at a distance...

Standard disclaimer:  I'm not saying Woodward is right.  I haven't studied this stuff anywhere near hard enough to pronounce on it one way or the other.  I'm just saying that as far as conservation of momentum is concerned he could be right.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 09/10/2009 04:58 PM
Kinda like how the Apollo spacecraft mysteriously slowed down for a couple of days straight on its trip to the moon, even though it was in hard vacuum.  Draw a box around the spacecraft and you get an unbalanced force.  Include the Earth (and Moon) in the picture and it suddenly makes sense.  Spooky action at a distance...

Standard disclaimer:  I'm not saying Woodward is right.  I haven't studied this stuff anywhere near hard enough to pronounce on it one way or the other.  I'm just saying that as far as conservation of momentum is concerned he could be right.

If he is right, he is conserving momentum. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 09/10/2009 05:07 PM
That's what I mean - conservation of momentum is satisfied in his theoretical description, and thus is not an impediment to him being right.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 05:20 PM
The theory is sound, meaning it is consistent with known physics.  It does however rely upon Mach's Principle.  If indeed inertia arises as a result of the gravitic connection between all the universe's various parts, then Woodward's theory obtains and his technology ought to work.  If on the other hand inertia is an intrinsic property of matter, or arises from some other function such as is proposed in ZPF theory, then Woodward's technology ought not to work.  The proof therefore is in empirical experiment--that's how we determine such things in science--and that's why Woodward spent this last year building and running the rotator rather than continue on with thrusters.

The rotator data therefore is extremely important discovery science.  C'est domage the scientific community has not yet caught up to just how urgent and important this research is.  Hopefully this will change when Jim presents at SPESIF in February.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/10/2009 06:19 PM
GI-Thruster:

"Hopefully this will change when Jim presents at SPESIF in February."

Don't forget Jim's presentation today at John Cramer's 75th Birthday Symposium at the Universtiy of Washington at 3:10 PDT, entitled "Why science fiction has little to fear from science".  I wish I was there to hear it...

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~lisa/CramerSymposium/
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 06:55 PM
No joke, that's going to be one conference to remember.  And for those who don't know, Jim, like most profesional educators, is way past being an accomlished communicator.  He's a thoroughly engaging and compelling communicator.  I'm sure his presentation will be great fun for all.  Wish I were there too.

I hope someone thinks to film the sessions and put them on UTube.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 06:56 PM
I should mention a couple other things with regards the field theory above.  It's true that some proponents of ZPF theory like Paul March, don't see any conflict between Mach's Principle and ZPF theory.  Paul believes ZPF theory is perfectly consistent with Mach's Principle and about this there can and should be open debate.  Jim would certainly say ZPF theory is wrong and explain how he thinks he knows this.  For the record, I think Jim's arguments against ZPF theory obtain, but Paul doesn't.  That debate will no doubt continue, just as it should, between real physicists.

ZPF theory is appealing to some because it proposes to explain spooky action at a distance with particle theory.  People like particles.  They're something we can visualize to replace the distinctive lack of image associated with field theory.  I like to have a mental image too, which is one reason I'm a proponent of Quantum Loop theory.

I think Loop Quantum Gravity is a better explanation for action at a distance than ZPF theory for several reasons.  First of all, Loop theory appeals because it shows a real connection between all the universe's various parts.  It gives us an image of a multidimensional fabric of space-time, very like the chain mail armor used in ages past, where loops are connected to their closest neighbors and through those neighbors to others, extending out across all space and time.  Loop theory also appeals to me in particular because as I wrote many years ago, it is the only solution to an historic philosophical problem known a "Zeno's Paradox Against Motion."

Zeno was a pre-Socratic philosopher in Greece.  Like most pre-Socratics, Zeno was a monist, like those supposed philosophers much later in India and the far East.  Zeno's argument for monism can be slightly reduced (the real version is longer) just so:

-To get from point a to point b, one must pass through the midpoint between (a')
-To get from point a' to b, one must pass through a second midpoint (a'')
-There are an infinite series of midpoints like this
-Since one can never get to the end of an infinite series, all motion is impossible and illusion

Now, you can pretend you have an answer for Zeno that firmly establishes how he's wrong, but if you have any idea of what the concept of infinity entails, you know that if you grant his premises, his conclusion necessarily follows.  This paradox, like many others of his, obtains if indeed you grant his premises and is truly one big black eye for philosophers for more than 2400 years.

What I like about Loop theory is it denies the premise that there is an infinite number of midpoints between any two points because it says that like matter and energy, space and time have a smallest possible unit.  Basically, Zeno's argument is wrong because it relies upon an infinite regression when Loop theory dictates that is not how reality works.  If space-time is composed of quantum loops with a specific size, it cannot be infinitely parsed.  There will come a point when it can no longer be divided so there is no infinite regression.

I like Loop theory.

One should also note that Loop theory is in accord with the philosophers of the far East who claim to have personal experience with the "connectedness" of all things.  Supposed "enlightenment" experiences all claim to have an ineffable apprehension of this connectedness, and from this posit monism.  But monism is not the experience.  Only the connectedness is the experience, and this is in concert with Loop theory. 

So Loop Quantum Gravity not only gives us an understanding of how fields and action at a distance may work, but answers this ancient paradox of Zeno's and gives us a framework for understanding some kinds of mystical experience.  It is also completely coherent with Mach's Principle and this is all why I like it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/10/2009 07:17 PM
G/I thruster:

Please explain the difference between the diameter of a loop in Loop Quantum Gravity theory and QM's minimum Planck Length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

"In physics, the Planck length, denoted, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters.  It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.  The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.  Current theory suggests that one Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known."

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/10/2009 07:23 PM
Philosophers get stuck on Zeno's paradox for the same reason they flunked calculus. ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 07:31 PM
Philosophers get stuck on Zeno's paradox for the same reason they flunked calculus. ;)

That's entirely true.  I'm surprised you know this as it's not particularly common knowledge that those who calously mishandle the notion of infinity, such as engineers and physicists, are the ones who simply don't understand--infinity is not a number.  It's not.  It's only when one presumes it is, as do most engineers, that one can step over the real issues.  Those who understand what the concept of infinity entails would never for example, divide by it.  Division is only suitable with numbers and infinity is not a number because it does not satisfy the identity theorm A=A.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 07:32 PM
G/I thruster:

Please explain the difference between the diameter of a loop in Loop Quantum Gravity theory and QM's minimum Planck Length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

"In physics, the Planck length, denoted, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters.  It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.  The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.  Current theory suggests that one Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known."



They are the same.  In QM, the claim is about what can be known.  In Loop theory, the claim is concerning existence itself.  In Loop theory, space is the place where existence can occur, meaning it can only occur within the loops and there is literally no "between" them or "outside" them.  So in Loop theory for example, if one presumes our big bang is the only big bang, then existence itself cannot occur outside the farthest reaches of the universe.  There is literally an outside where there are no loops, but there is no way for existence to occur there so "outside" the universe is literally not a place or a space.

QM is talking only about knowledge.  Loop theory is making much stronger claims about existence itself.  More importantly, QM is not saying that space-time has this fabric of quantum loops.  In QM, we have the notion that space is this empty void that stuff like particles move around in.  In Loop theory, the void has structure and reality whether or not a particle is present.  This structure connects all things and can indeed be used to explain spooky action at a distance.  I'd bet if Einstein were with us today, he'd be a very strong proponent of Loop theory.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 09/10/2009 10:20 PM
Explain how light refracts without action at a distance. Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time", i.e. the path of refracted light is bent by matter with an index of refraction because the speed of light inside the matter is slower than in air or a vacuum, so light wants to spend as little time travelling slower as possible. He showed that all subatomic reactions work both forward and backward in time as well, and that for some quantum interactions, such as entangled photon pairs, action at a distance DOES in fact, happen.

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to point that out. There are some other examples which point this out, but for the time being there's no way to use them to transmit information. QM weirdly seems to preserve causality. Heck, some people are still arguing for really fast speeds of gravity, millions of times c. And what is aspin-2 particle doing travelling faster than light?
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Quote
Star-Drive also pointed out retrograde signals, part of Maxwell's original equations, and again there's no good reason to dismiss them. Again, action-at-a-distance doesn't work if you're just looking at your 4-D space. But we have no idea how many dimensions we actually live in.
Waves coming from the future?


Quote
Quote
This is all now well established physics and only fools and idiots refuse to recognise the fact that as far as simultaneity, these effects appear to be action at a distance, just as the Mach Effect appears to be so.

Well, that's a bit harsh, but I guess things like tachyons (or rather, tachyonic fields) are gaining popularity again as solutions for a few theories. It'll be a while yet before it even becomes a really big controversial thing, because right now the effects just don't appear in a direct causative manner. But I gues in QM thinking, the effects ARE there, they just aren't there.
The "well established" part is interesting. Is there a well established theory for why an electron accelerates due to an incident electric field? All I see is a bunch of handwaving about virtual photons, etc. What the heck is an electron, anyway? I guess these are foolish and idiotic questions...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/11/2009 01:53 AM
Explain how light refracts without action at a distance. Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time", i.e. the path of refracted light is bent by matter with an index of refraction because the speed of light inside the matter is slower than in air or a vacuum, so light wants to spend as little time travelling slower as possible. He showed that all subatomic reactions work both forward and backward in time as well, and that for some quantum interactions, such as entangled photon pairs, action at a distance DOES in fact, happen.

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to point that out. There are some other examples which point this out, but for the time being there's no way to use them to transmit information. QM weirdly seems to preserve causality. Heck, some people are still arguing for really fast speeds of gravity, millions of times c. And what is aspin-2 particle doing travelling faster than light?
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Not to my knowledge. For refraction to work, without a quantum backward in time, multiversal explanation, you have to assume that photons are intelligent pool players and always know ahead of time what angle through every piece of matter between points A and B is the fastest path.

Standard electromagnetic theory doesn't believe in collapsing probability spheres either.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 09/11/2009 02:35 AM
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Not to my knowledge. For refraction to work, without a quantum backward in time, multiversal explanation, you have to assume that photons are intelligent pool players and always know ahead of time what angle through every piece of matter between points A and B is the fastest path.
You don't see that as evidence against QM and the photon model??? Look at the contortions that QM has to go through to explain simple things like refraction.

Quote
Standard electromagnetic theory doesn't believe in collapsing probability spheres either.
I don't think that nature believes in "collapsing probability spheres" either.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/11/2009 02:54 AM
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Not to my knowledge. For refraction to work, without a quantum backward in time, multiversal explanation, you have to assume that photons are intelligent pool players and always know ahead of time what angle through every piece of matter between points A and B is the fastest path.
You don't see that as evidence against QM and the photon model??? Look at the contortions that QM has to go through to explain simple things like refraction.


The problem is that electromagnetic theory doesnt explain refraction at all, the best it can do is describe it mathematically without explaining why, for instance, in the Huygens-Fresnel principle, waves coming through parallel slits (or more properly, wave peaks for a given frequency) know to line up with each other at a new angle to create a new wave front moving in a new direction, rather than lining up with other waves ahead or behind. The Huygens-Fresnel principle fails in this description as well because it still requires that the photons in the wave front to know and communicate with each other (i.e. QE entanglement) what the speed of light is going to be in the new material it is hitting and spontaneously reorganize a new wave front at the proper angle for the change in wavelength caused by the slowing of the speed of light. There's a whole lot of helpless hand waving going on in the HF principle that remained unexplained until quantum theory came along to explain it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 09/11/2009 05:21 AM
The problem is that electromagnetic theory doesnt explain refraction at all, the best it can do is describe it mathematically without explaining why, for instance, in the Huygens-Fresnel principle, waves coming through parallel slits (or more properly, wave peaks for a given frequency) know to line up with each other at a new angle to create a new wave front moving in a new direction, rather than lining up with other waves ahead or behind. The Huygens-Fresnel principle fails in this description as well because it still requires that the photons in the wave front to know and communicate with each other (i.e. QE entanglement) what the speed of light is going to be in the new material it is hitting and spontaneously reorganize a new wave front at the proper angle for the change in wavelength caused by the slowing of the speed of light. There's a whole lot of helpless hand waving going on in the HF principle that remained unexplained until quantum theory came along to explain it.
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/12/2009 05:27 AM
The problem is that electromagnetic theory doesnt explain refraction at all, the best it can do is describe it mathematically without explaining why, for instance, in the Huygens-Fresnel principle, waves coming through parallel slits (or more properly, wave peaks for a given frequency) know to line up with each other at a new angle to create a new wave front moving in a new direction, rather than lining up with other waves ahead or behind. The Huygens-Fresnel principle fails in this description as well because it still requires that the photons in the wave front to know and communicate with each other (i.e. QE entanglement) what the speed of light is going to be in the new material it is hitting and spontaneously reorganize a new wave front at the proper angle for the change in wavelength caused by the slowing of the speed of light. There's a whole lot of helpless hand waving going on in the HF principle that remained unexplained until quantum theory came along to explain it.
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?


Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/12/2009 03:00 PM
Guys:

You might consider taking a look at Richard Feynman's 1979 Auckland, New Zealand video lecture series on photons, reflections, refractions, electrons and the QM frontier from his vantage point in 1979.  I'm halfway thru them at the moment and I'm once again blown away by how brillant this man was both in physics and as a teacher.

http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

BTW, in regards your E&M discussions, think about photons, electrons, and their respective interacting temporal phasers instead of classical E&M waves.  That is the road taken by Feynman during these 1979 lectures and it made my QM classes from college so much easier to understand...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 09/12/2009 03:24 PM
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/14/2009 10:01 AM
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.


The problem with non QEM explanations of refraction is that the ray of light must penetrate some distance into the second medium in order to know what it is index is, so it knows what direction to travel inside the second medium, yet photons change their vector, as far as can be determined, upon entry into the second medium, even though this should take at least a half a wavelength. However if you take a material with a thickness of less than half a wavelength and send photons through of long enough wavelengths, they still exhibit the full vector change expected of the mediums refraction index.

Also you are talking "conduction", plz be sure we are both discussing photons and not electrons. Dielectric materials deal in electrons. Refraction deals in photons.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 09/14/2009 05:22 PM
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.


The problem with non QEM explanations of refraction is that the ray of light must penetrate some distance into the second medium in order to know what it is index is, so it knows what direction to travel inside the second medium, yet photons change their vector, as far as can be determined, upon entry into the second medium, even though this should take at least a half a wavelength. However if you take a material with a thickness of less than half a wavelength and send photons through of long enough wavelengths, they still exhibit the full vector change expected of the mediums refraction index.

Also you are talking "conduction", plz be sure we are both discussing photons and not electrons. Dielectric materials deal in electrons. Refraction deals in photons.
The interactions discussed here are almost exclusively between photons/em waves and electrons, regardless of whether the electrons are bound or free.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/14/2009 06:23 PM
While I admit I'm not following every aspect of this very interesting discussion, I'm enjoying it.  Allow please for me to refocus the original intent: we were talking about action at a distance as relates to gravity theory and specifically, Mach's Principle.  From wiki on AAAD:

"A related question, raised by Ernst Mach, was how rotating bodies know how much to bulge at the equator. How do they know their rate of rotation? This, it seems, requires an action-at-a-distance from distant matter, informing the rotating object about the state of the universe. Einstein coined the term Mach's principle for this question."

If a rotating body did not know there was a rest of the universe, it would not know it was rotating.  So somehow, all the universe's parts know about each other--hence Mach's Principle.

BTW, for a fascinating discussion of this, see "A Closed Universe Cannot Rotate" by D.H.King found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252952457&sr=8-3
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2009 06:48 PM
It seems that you can sum this up like this: There is not fixed origin in the universe, or a specific point where you can say "okay, you are now at complete rest". However, this doesn't apply to rotational speed. Clearly, you can tell if an object is rotating or not (by whether or not it experiences centrifugal forces--i.e. it is in a non-inertial reference frame). Why is that? Is it because of the distribution of mass of the universe? Perhaps, but this isn't proven.

But, it seems to me that the Gravi-inertial effect is dependent on concepts like frame-dragging, yet frame-dragging (if it occurs at all) can barely be measured at all (see the difficulty in getting results from Gravity Probe-B), let alone be used for propulsion. It seems to me that the physics behind the gravi-inertial effect thruster experiments are far from proved, even if it is theoretically possible to get SOME sort of exceedingly-small value from it. It seems to me like you're better off developing a propulsion system to ride magnetic-field gradients.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/14/2009 06:58 PM
"It seems to me that the physics behind the gravi-inertial effect thruster experiments are far from proved. . ."

I agree.  In science, in order to have anything approaching "proof"; one of the things we require is repeatability.  This implies that experiments will have to be repeated.  Of course, the notion of "proof" is not really a part of science.  Science doesn't ever prove anything; it merely disproves the alternatives.  So before we can see anything we might want to call substantial evidence of Mach's Principle, something approaching "proof"; we'll need to see a lot of replications of the sorts of experiments James Woodward ran this last year.

In the meantime, it is only fair to recognize that the data to date is more than encouraging.  Anyone who invests the time to understand Woodward's work this last year would be forced to agree.  He DID find a signal at the second harmonic in anti-phase with electrostriction--just as his theory indicates he should.  We therefore need to see some independent replications of this urgent and important experiment.

You're a physicist, Robo.  What's more important in the physics world than discovering the origins of inertia and a way to have a measure of mastery over it?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/14/2009 07:15 PM
"But, it seems to me that the Gravi-inertial effect is dependent on concepts like frame-dragging, yet frame-dragging (if it occurs at all) can barely be measured at all (see the difficulty in getting results from Gravity Probe-B), let alone be used for propulsion. . ."

Mach Effects do not rely upon frame dragging but FD is a necessary consequence of GR.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

"The Gravity Probe B experiment[50][51] is currently under way to experimentally measure another gravitomagnetic effect, i.e. the Schiff precession of a gyroscope,[52][53] to an expected 1% accuracy or better. Unfortunately, it seems that such an ambitious goal will not be achieved: indeed, first preliminary results released in April 2007 point toward a so far obtained accuracy of[54] 256-128%, with the hope of reaching about 13% in December 2007.[55] However, in 2008 the Senior Review Report of the NASA Astrophysics Division Operating Missions stated that it is unlikely that Gravity Probe B team will be able to reduce the errors to the level necessary to produce a convincing test of currently-untested aspects of General Relativity (including Frame-dragging).[56] [57]"

Note, the claim is not that Gravity Probe B has failed to find frame dragging but rather, that it is incapable of doing so.  Lack of evidence is never evidence of lack.  Our best bet is still with GR.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2009 07:29 PM
Note, the claim is not that Gravity Probe B has failed to find frame dragging but rather, that it is incapable of doing so.

That's my point. You're proposing to use an effect related to frame-dragging to produce propulsion. We can barely even measure such an effect, let alone use it to provide a propulsion method capable of competing with a rocket. If such an effect is real, I can see it being used for interstellar travel, but certainly not for reaching LEO. Just saying that it scales very rapidly isn't justifiable, unless you can actually prove it. I really have a hard time believing that you can change the mass of a system with forces internal to the system, since energy is conserved (i.e. to change its mass, you must change its energy--i.e. E=mc^2, but that can't happen in a closed system, and in an open system, that energy would be radiated away, not just available for you to use again, unless you are being pumped by an outside energy source, like a laser).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/14/2009 07:45 PM
"That's my point. You're proposing to use an effect related to frame-dragging to produce propulsion."

Mach Effects are not related to frame dragging except that FD is a consequence of GR which current M-E theory is based upon.  M-E does not scale with dragging or anything else like this so the size of FD has nothing to do with the size of M-E (though, I can see why this might be a misunderstanding.)

M-E scales with many things, such as frequency; but not with any FD effects.  The rest of your post is based on what you don't know and really has nothing to do with M-E physics.  Hopefully Paul can come along here and post some of the scaling laws for us.

But if I may just clear up one point, the mass of the system (the universe) is constant but the mass of the thruster is NOT.  Mach Effects are mass fluctuations.  It is entirely appropriate to generalize that the proof of the pudding here is whether it's possible to fluctuate mass at all.  If it is not, then your complaints obtain.  If it is, they are not coming to the issue.

If mass fluctuations based upon Mach's Principle, General Relativity and Woodward's theory, are possible; the rest is just engineering and yeah, we ought to be able to build very powerful, efficient thrusters.

You should read the papers.  You'd be amazed at what pops out of the math.

Edit: one proviso, we don't yet know how M-E scales through the wormhole boundary.  If it turned out we can't use M-E within wormhole territory, then we would have a serious restriction to thrust efficiency, but it would still seem possible to build very highly efficient thrusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2009 08:18 PM
Anything beyond very modest mass fluctuations seem to me to be founded on very shaky ground. I read some of the paper presented by Woodward on his website, and it seemed very heavy in the "we did our math calculations before in some other paper and we get this 2nd or 3rd order effect," when physics often ignores 2nd or 3rd order effects. Many of the arguments are hand-waving, or appealing to obscure papers 50 years ago.

These relativistic gravity effects seem analogous to Magnetism, which is much weaker than electricity (which is its real source). It is easy to show how magnetism arises out of electrostatics with relativistic effects. Why is it so hard to show that these effects arise out of gravity, either with experiment or analytically? (Of course, general relativity is much harder than special relativity.) Gravity is very weak compared to electrostatic or even magnetic effects, so I find it difficult to believe that you're going to end up being able to manipulate it and get effects that are strong enough to be practical.

I expect a thorough and complete theoretical analysis of his work to show that it is no greater of an effect than the impulse imparted by a photon impinging on an object. In other words, I expect the power needed to drive such an effect to scale with frequency in the same way along with the effect.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/14/2009 08:46 PM
Well, I can respect the general tone of conservatism.  Certainly though, if you're saying you read part of one paper that referred to the basic theory in another, then called everything you read in part of a later paper "hand waving", I have to wonder about your basic methods.  I see this all the time in physics--it takes so much time and effort to thoroughly understand anything new that people generally apply laziness to their method and rationalize making what is essentially a hasty generalization (and hence the basis of logical fallacy).  It would be much more in keeping with the general endeavor of science to simply say "I'm not familiar enough to make a call."  I see this method everywhere, even in those who get paid by CIA to vet cutting edge technology.  I suppose if we can't expect those who get paid to vet physics to make a decent effort, we can't expect much from anyone.  And. . .we have the reason no one is paying attention to what could easily be the greatest breakthrough in physics in a century.  Laziness.

And no offense Robo, but if you had read for comprehension, you would certainly not have made the arguments you have directly above.  You're not showing any understanding of the theory, so what was the point in your reading?  This "hand waving" you refer to--how is it, it wasn't objected to by the real work-in-the-world physicists who did the peer review of this more than a decade ago?  They missed the hand waving while you observed it in a casual few minutes of your time?

I don't think so.  Honestly, you need to be a LOT more careful than to make such accusations of people who's works you have not read and do not understand.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2009 09:25 PM
I'm not trying to peer-review this work, just stating my opinion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/15/2009 12:28 AM
G/I thruster:

Please explain the difference between the diameter of a loop in Loop Quantum Gravity theory and QM's minimum Planck Length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

"In physics, the Planck length, denoted, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters.  It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.  The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.  Current theory suggests that one Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known."



They are the same.  In QM, the claim is about what can be known.  In Loop theory, the claim is concerning existence itself.  In Loop theory, space is the place where existence can occur, meaning it can only occur within the loops and there is literally no "between" them or "outside" them.  So in Loop theory for example, if one presumes our big bang is the only big bang, then existence itself cannot occur outside the farthest reaches of the universe.  There is literally an outside where there are no loops, but there is no way for existence to occur there so "outside" the universe is literally not a place or a space.

In other words... we are in... The Matrix.

Quote
QM is talking only about knowledge.  Loop theory is making much stronger claims about existence itself.  More importantly, QM is not saying that space-time has this fabric of quantum loops.  In QM, we have the notion that space is this empty void that stuff like particles move around in.  In Loop theory, the void has structure and reality whether or not a particle is present.  This structure connects all things and can indeed be used to explain spooky action at a distance.  I'd bet if Einstein were with us today, he'd be a very strong proponent of Loop theory.

My understanding is that's what QM implies all along. With a bit more fuzziness and the nonzero possibility of turning into blue cheese along the way.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/15/2009 12:48 AM
1. Anything beyond very modest mass fluctuations seem to me to be founded on very shaky ground. I read some of the paper presented by Woodward on his website, and it seemed very heavy in the "we did our math calculations before in some other paper and we get this 2nd or 3rd order effect," when physics often ignores 2nd or 3rd order effects. Many of the arguments are hand-waving, or appealing to obscure papers 50 years ago.

2. These relativistic gravity effects seem analogous to Magnetism, which is much weaker than electricity (which is its real source). It is easy to show how magnetism arises out of electrostatics with relativistic effects.

3. Why is it so hard to show that these effects arise out of gravity, either with experiment or analytically? (Of course, general relativity is much harder than special relativity.) Gravity is very weak compared to electrostatic or even magnetic effects, so I find it difficult to believe that you're going to end up being able to manipulate it and get effects that are strong enough to be practical.

1. Even modest mass fluctuations can be usable for thrust.

2. Bad analogy. Gravitomagnetism has nowt to do with this.

3. I don't think it's hard at all. Woodward and March have been demonstrating anomalous thrust with their pocket money.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/15/2009 01:12 AM
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.


The problem with non QEM explanations of refraction is that the ray of light must penetrate some distance into the second medium in order to know what it is index is, so it knows what direction to travel inside the second medium, yet photons change their vector, as far as can be determined, upon entry into the second medium, even though this should take at least a half a wavelength. However if you take a material with a thickness of less than half a wavelength and send photons through of long enough wavelengths, they still exhibit the full vector change expected of the mediums refraction index.

Also you are talking "conduction", plz be sure we are both discussing photons and not electrons. Dielectric materials deal in electrons. Refraction deals in photons.


Electrons also display similar behaviour - the double slit experiment works for them too.

Bizarrely enough, I watched an episode of Stargate Atlantis where they actually mentioned this very concept (QM refraction). I was very impressed by the highbrow stuff that the writers sneak in through Rodney's technobabble.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/15/2009 04:38 AM
1. Anything beyond very modest mass fluctuations seem to me to be founded on very shaky ground. I read some of the paper presented by Woodward on his website, and it seemed very heavy in the "we did our math calculations before in some other paper and we get this 2nd or 3rd order effect," when physics often ignores 2nd or 3rd order effects. Many of the arguments are hand-waving, or appealing to obscure papers 50 years ago.

2. These relativistic gravity effects seem analogous to Magnetism, which is much weaker than electricity (which is its real source). It is easy to show how magnetism arises out of electrostatics with relativistic effects.

3. Why is it so hard to show that these effects arise out of gravity, either with experiment or analytically? (Of course, general relativity is much harder than special relativity.) Gravity is very weak compared to electrostatic or even magnetic effects, so I find it difficult to believe that you're going to end up being able to manipulate it and get effects that are strong enough to be practical.

1. Even modest mass fluctuations can be usable for thrust.

2. Bad analogy. Gravitomagnetism has nowt to do with this.

3. I don't think it's hard at all. Woodward and March have been demonstrating anomalous thrust with their pocket money.

Lampy & Robobeat:

"3. I don't think it's hard at all.  Woodward and March have been demonstrating anomalous thrust with their pocket money."

The reason that we have demonstrated up to milli-Newton plus forces with proof of principle M-E devices using our "pocket change" is that while gravitational forces on a per atom basis are ~40 orders of magnitude weaker than electric charges, there is no plus or minus gravitational mass or energy charges as there is in electrostatics.  Gravitational mass/energy charges do NOT subtract from each other as they do in electrostatics over large distances.  They only add.  So when the gravitational charge of the universe's ~1x10^80+ atoms plus Dark Energy are summed over the volume of the casually connected universe, these additive gravitational forces become what we call “inertial forces” that are proportional to the applied local force, have the opposite sign, and are instantaneous as well.  This is not supposition on our part for it is contained in Newton’s three laws of motion for any to see if you bother to look for it, and it is demonstrated and verified every day when an object moves relative to the distant stars.  It seems that a lot of folks miss this one simple fact and that is what living in a Machian universe brings to the table.  And while you are correct in saying that what Woodward has found in his Mach-Effect is a secondary time derivative effect of the primary inertial force, his M-E derivation and our existing experimental data indicates that these “secondary” transient inertial forces can be as large or larger than the primary inertial forces under the appropriate extreme dE/dt and bulk acceleration or da/dt (jerk) conditions.  And that is what we are trying to harness in our M-E thruster work. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/15/2009 01:36 PM
Well, Star-drive, I am glad that you guys are seeing good results, even though I don't quite accept the theoretical aspects. I hope you guys are able to find a useful effect.

When I look at the competing theories for the origin of inertia/gravity (Machian vs Quantum vacuum), I am more persuaded by the Quantum vacuum effect. The Machian idea seems to much to rely on non-local effects for my tastes as a physicist, and the quantum vacuum people do a better job of making the physics understandable--although both approaches are controversial in the physics community and currently have their flaws.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/15/2009 11:32 PM
Well, I must admit I'm more persuaded by the Machian. There is some (slight) evidence for action-at-a-distance - such as the post-Big Bang inhomogeneities. QVF, I can accept but the issue for me is the reference frame for this medium. How or why is it at rest? Etc.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/16/2009 12:10 AM
Well, I must admit I'm more persuaded by the Machian. There is some (slight) evidence for action-at-a-distance - such as the post-Big Bang inhomogeneities. QVF, I can accept but the issue for me is the reference frame for this medium. How or why is it at rest? Etc.

Yeah, that the qvf ref frame is always at rest seems odd (and illogical) to me, too, but quantum vacuum fluctuations are already appealed to in relatively mainstream physics as explanations for a wide variety of physical phenomenon, and that would also have to act the same in all inertial ref frames, so that's kind of why a quantum vacuum source of inertia seems more plausible than a Machian source. I still don't completely buy either explanations, though.

EDIT: And it OUGHT to be at rest if it's true at all, since many experiments have shown that there isn't an "ether" frame that we are moving with respect to.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/16/2009 04:11 AM
Well, I must admit I'm more persuaded by the Machian. There is some (slight) evidence for action-at-a-distance - such as the post-Big Bang inhomogeneities. QVF, I can accept but the issue for me is the reference frame for this medium. How or why is it at rest? Etc.

Yeah, that the qvf ref frame is always at rest seems odd (and illogical) to me, too, but quantum vacuum fluctuations are already appealed to in relatively mainstream physics as explanations for a wide variety of physical phenomenon, and that would also have to act the same in all inertial ref frames, so that's kind of why a quantum vacuum source of inertia seems more plausible than a Machian source. I still don't completely buy either explanations, though.

EDIT: And it OUGHT to be at rest if it's true at all, since many experiments have shown that there isn't an "ether" frame that we are moving with respect to.

Robotbeat & Lampy:

There is alternate way to view the M-E and that is through the lens of Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations controlled by standard neutral plasma hydrodynamics, which is being pursued by a local friend of mine by the name of Dr. Harold (Sonny) White who has a PhD in plasma physics from Rice University and who also works at NASA/JSC.  I'm attaching a STAIF-2007 presentation of his describing his early thoughts on this topic, but we've yet been able to obtain any substantiating experimental data for his QVF/MHD conjecture, so it is still very speculative until his latest test article gets its run in the force pendulum later on this year.  In the long haul we will no doubt have to merge the GRT based M-E with the QM based QVF/MHD world view into a quantum gravity theory that experimental data has verified, but until then we have to use both of these approaches to guide our experimental studies and hope that luck will be on our side in the interim. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 09/23/2009 02:49 PM
I'm curious if there's any ballpark range for how much such MLTs would cost to manufacture, from lightweight civilian to the other end of the spectrum of applications.  What would be the cost of the lowest range of SSTO-capable MLT-powered single or two-seater craft; or at least what would the rough range of the propulsion systems' cost be for such a lightweight craft, once manufacturing economies of scale came in effect?

Is the MLTs' expected fabrication well known enough to make such an estimate?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/23/2009 06:40 PM
I think it's way too early to say, Cinder.  Could be these MLT's and/or UFG's will be able to use very light, cheap materials such as electrostrictive elastomers like 3M glue, or could be we need exotic single crystals in large pieces that cost $5k/cc.  Could be many other things.

Right now, the most expensive issue is the power systems, Z matching and feedback as the systems warm up and the Z changes.  We don't have any reactive systems but they're commonplace and given the resources, that engineering is well understood.  Once you start to do more than research, your costs for such things drop through the floor so that's all good news.

But if we find that we have to have laser sintered PMN-PT diffusion bonded to an exotic liquid metal backplate, then the cost of such a thing will not come down until we're manufacturing these by the thousands. . .so it's impossible to answer your question until we know what real prototypes would look like.  We're still doing pure research; not even looking at commercial systems yet.  It's possible the PZT, PTFE, BaTiO3, etc. being used today will be in prototypes tomorrow, but it's just as likely we'd need single crystals or something else as of yet untried.

No way to know. . .yet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/23/2009 08:14 PM
What is the power needed for a certain thrust?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 09/23/2009 08:47 PM
Thanks Thruster.

Robotbeat, did you look at the papers posted by StarDrive?  There's a pretty fair detailing of experimental and projected specs.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/23/2009 09:24 PM
What is the projected input power its projected thrust? That's all I want to know.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/24/2009 04:08 AM
What is the projected input power its projected thrust? That's all I want to know.

In my most reliable M-E experiment, the Mach-2MHz MLT, the input power was ~7.0 watts RF at 3.8 MHz that yielded a ~5.0 milli-Newton thrust for a thrust to power figure of merit of 7.14x10^-4 Newton/Watt.  And the M-E theory predicts that as the thrust is increased by increasing the M-E drive's operating frequency and voltage, the efficiency of the M-E drive should go up as well as shown in the attached slides originally from my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 presentation.  Will we ever reach this hoped for 1.0 Newton/Watt efficiency that the M-E theory indicates may be obtainable and that I used for my STAIF-2007 paper?  Perhaps, but it may take decades of material science research into capacitor dielectrics optimized for M-E drive applications, just like it took close to a century to perfect the internal combustion piston engine for the automobile industry.  Advancements like this don't come for free...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/25/2009 01:00 AM
What is the projected input power its projected thrust? That's all I want to know.

In my most reliable M-E experiment, the Mach-2MHz MLT, the input power was ~7.0 watts RF at 3.8 MHz that yielded a ~5.0 milli-Newton thrust for a thrust to power figure of merit of 7.14x10^-4 Newton/Watt.  And the M-E theory predicts that as the thrust is increased by increasing the M-E drive's operating frequency and voltage, the efficiency of the M-E drive should go up as well as shown in the attached slides originally from my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 presentation.  Will we ever reach this hoped for 1.0 Newton/Watt efficiency that the M-E theory indicates may be obtainable and that I used for my STAIF-2007 paper?  Perhaps, but it may take decades of material science research into capacitor dielectrics optimized for M-E drive applications, just like it took close to a century to perfect the internal combustion piston engine for the automobile industry.  Advancements like this don't come for free...

For comparison, 3x10^-10 Watt / Newton for photon drives. A leap of about 6 orders of magnitude. Even with the current efficiencies, with beamed power it's a viable drive. A 1GW microwave beam could push a 7 tonne payload at 1G. Mass to thrust and cap lifetime is the issue in this case.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/25/2009 01:52 AM
For comparison, 3x10^-10 Watt / Newton for photon drives. A leap of about 6 orders of magnitude. Even with the current efficiencies, with beamed power it's a viable drive. A 1GW microwave beam could push a 7 tonne payload at 1G. Mass to thrust and cap lifetime is the issue in this case.

A 1G thruster can take over from the core of a LV.  Secondary thrusters will also be needed to accelerate the vehicle.  At say 1.1G the secondary thrusters are no longer needed.  Even at 0.25G such a drive will reduce the time to Mars.
 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: qraal on 09/26/2009 09:54 AM
1 W/1 N would be quite a space-drive. But to do useful propulsion it just has to beat the competition. Consider VASIMR - at full throttle the drive gets 1 N/125 kW. And that's just jet-power, the actual electrical efficiency is worse. If the MLT can get 1 N/kW and keep that up for weeks, then it'll be pure "Buck Rogers" between here and Mars.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: qraal on 09/26/2009 10:05 AM
1 W/1 N would be quite a space-drive. But to do useful propulsion it just has to beat the competition. Consider VASIMR - at full throttle the drive gets 1 N/125 kW. And that's just jet-power, the actual electrical efficiency is worse. If the MLT can get 1 N/kW and keep that up for weeks, then it'll be pure "Buck Rogers" between here and Mars.

Actually after a little less than 1 week it'd reach Mars. Now that'd make colonization somewhat easier wouldn't it? With a dry mass of 200 tons and 200 MW power - same power as the high-end VASIMR - then the ship would accelerate at 1 m/s2, doing the trip in 152 hours when Mars is 0.5 AU away.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 09/26/2009 10:30 AM
Am I wrong in the impression that that would imply minimally-scaled (IOW cheap) probes to many different targets for the price of and in a fraction of the travel time of a single mission today?  That the more advanced stages of MLT tech (e.g. those needed for SSTO payloads and manned missions) wouldn't be required to push such small probes?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/26/2009 08:50 PM
Am I wrong in the impression that that would imply minimally-scaled (IOW cheap) probes to many different targets for the price of and in a fraction of the travel time of a single mission today?  That the more advanced stages of MLT tech (e.g. those needed for SSTO payloads and manned missions) wouldn't be required to push such small probes?

Cinder:

You are on the right trail.  Any propulsion technology that can provide an order of magnitude improvement in performance in one or more important performance parameters like specific power (Watts/kg), specific thrust AKA Specific Impulse Isp (seconds) or my thrust to power figure of merit Newtons per Watt is a paradigm changer.  Right now the best energy limited ion or plasma rocket engine like VASIMR can provide 1 N/40 kW input power with an Isp of ~5,000 seconds.  If we can build reliable and long-lived M-E drives that produce 1.0 N per 4.0 kW we have a game changer for robotic solar system space drives.  If we can build an M-E drive that can produce that 1.0 N for only 400W of input power, that means we can now produce 10,000 Newtons (2,258 lb-f) for 4.0 Mega-Watts.  That’s not quite a one gee space drive that could lift your Toyota Corolla off the ground,  but when tied to a Lerner 5.0 MW Dense Plasma Fusion (DPF) reactor, we are getting very close to same.  And finally with three orders of magnitude improvement in the M-E drives, we would only need 40 watts to produce that 1.0 Newton of force, so the total power required to lift the Corolla off the ground is now on the order of 500 kW which means that a DPF reactor tied to four 10,000 Newton M-E drives would be one hell of a hot rod that could produce 4 gees of acceleration all the way to Mars and back! 

The foregoing could all happen in a few decades of continuous R&D improvements in the M-E cap materials and drive electronics, provided we can first prove conclusively to all that matter that the M-E is for real and engineerable to that first commercial step of powering station-keeping systems for communication satellites that require a high Isp 1.0 Newton thruster.  So if we can provide that 1.0 Newton thruster with power requirements equal to or less than the current ion drive solutions of ~1.0kW, we are off to the commercial M-E races.  Until then, we are still stuck in the classical chicken and egg quandary where we have to first find the resources that will allow us to push the current M-E data set from its current milli-Newton expressions up to at least 0.1 Newtons and preferably 1.0 Newton levels, while using only 1.0 kW of power.  And to do that we first have to build a test article that can levitate itself before the M-E skeptics will allow themselves to believe.  In the meantime we continue to plow the M-E ground on our own nickel trying to find that combination of ingredients that will get us to that 1.0 Newton goal.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/27/2009 01:23 AM
Am I wrong in the impression that that would imply minimally-scaled (IOW cheap) probes to many different targets for the price of and in a fraction of the travel time of a single mission today?  That the more advanced stages of MLT tech (e.g. those needed for SSTO payloads and manned missions) wouldn't be required to push such small probes?

Cinder:

You are on the right trail.  Any propulsion technology that can provide an order of magnitude improvement in performance in one or more important performance parameters like specific power (Watts/kg), specific thrust AKA Specific Impulse Isp (seconds) or my thrust to power figure of merit Newtons per Watt is a paradigm changer.  Right now the best energy limited ion or plasma rocket engine like VASIMR can provide 1 N/40 kW input power with an Isp of ~5,000 seconds.  If we can build reliable and long-lived M-E drives that produce 1.0 N per 4.0 kW we have a game changer for robotic solar system space drives.  If we can build an M-E drive that can produce that 1.0 N for only 400W of input power, that means we can now produce 10,000 Newtons (2,258 lb-f) for 4.0 Mega-Watts.  That’s not quite a one gee space drive that could lift your Toyota Corolla off the ground,  but when tied to a Lerner 5.0 MW Dense Plasma Fusion (DPF) reactor, we are getting very close to same.  And finally with three orders of magnitude improvement in the M-E drives, we would only need 40 watts to produce that 1.0 Newton of force, so the total power required to lift the Corolla off the ground is now on the order of 500 kW which means that a DPF reactor tied to four 10,000 Newton M-E drives would be one hell of a hot rod that could produce 4 gees of acceleration all the way to Mars and back! 

NOTE: 75 horsepower = 100 kW. Thus a 500 kW car engine is 375 hp, which is pretty typical for your top of the line sports cars. Lose the transmission and drive train mass and exchange it for a LOX tank and some wings, and you are flying to orbit. Less than two gallons of gasoline to make orbit (plus the needed LOX).

Before some folks jump on this as fantasy, note I'm ignoring the obvious need for aerodynamics, flight avionics, and a mechanism for engine exhaust to be vented in orbit without generating unwanted thrust (perhaps a heat exchanger/compressor to bottle it as water and dry ice), and various other issues.

The point is that several hundred kW is not really an unusually high amount of power. Many very normal individuals in this world have such powerplants at their disposal.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 09/27/2009 04:46 PM
Thank you Star-Drive.  I'm anxious to hear the next results..
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: qraal on 09/28/2009 11:45 AM

NOTE: 75 horsepower = 100 kW. Thus a 500 kW car engine is 375 hp, which is pretty typical for your top of the line sports cars.

au contraire, but 1 metric hp = 75 kgf.m/s  (735.5 W) and an old-school horse-power is 550 ft.lb/s (745.7 W.) Thus 75 hp isn't 100 kW, but just 55.164 kW. That's still pretty respectable. I have heard of a car with 750 hp under the hood. Of course what actually is converted into power on the road is substantially less due to thermodynamic & drive-train inefficiencies. Better efficiencies are possible, but for rather different engine configurations.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 09/28/2009 12:50 PM
At 40 W/N, batteries would probably work for a lot of applications. (i.e. LEO & Moon trips, or even slow Mars trips)


At 1 W/N, solar power plus battery back up could make sense. Thin film solar cells at 1 kW/kg or even older 100 W/kg cells would produce enough power for high thrust in-space applications. 

The arrays would probably be too flimsy for in-atmosphere applications though. Take off on battery power, cruise to 100 km at 1 g, then deploy solar panels.

My BOTE for a 10,000 kg vehicle is (approx.):

100 kW needed for 1 g.
300 kg of Li-ion batteries (100 Wh/kg) to climb for 1000 s at 100 m/s.
100 kg of thin film solar cells. About 500 m^2 or two 25 x 10 m panels, plus support structure.

Effectively unlimited range. (until you run out of sunlight)



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: BarryKirk on 09/28/2009 04:05 PM
I suspect, when working ME thrusters are developed, the efficiency will vary based on the direction of thrust.

Let me explain what I'm talking about.

There is a certain amount of energy associated with an object in orbit.  I do not believe that a ME will be capable of pushing an object on the ground into orbit using less energy than is associated with the energy of that orbit.

Therefore, although a ME thruster may have some non local characteristics, it will most likely have some local characteristics depending on the gravitational potential well it is operating in.

Just a gut feeling with nothing behind it, other than the feeling that conservation of energy must hold even for a ME thruster.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 09/28/2009 04:21 PM
I suspect, when working ME thrusters are developed, the efficiency will vary based on the direction of thrust.

Let me explain what I'm talking about.

There is a certain amount of energy associated with an object in orbit.  I do not believe that a ME will be capable of pushing an object on the ground into orbit using less energy than is associated with the energy of that orbit.

Therefore, although a ME thruster may have some non local characteristics, it will most likely have some local characteristics depending on the gravitational potential well it is operating in.

Just a gut feeling with nothing behind it, other than the feeling that conservation of energy must hold even for a ME thruster.

Beats me, but have you considered it from the point of view of conservation of energy for the entire Universe?

I'm still sceptical of the theory, but not having done any detailed research, not prepared to dismiss it out of hand.  Would be very happy if it proved out to practical use.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 09/28/2009 04:30 PM
There is a certain amount of energy associated with an object in orbit.  I do not believe that a ME will be capable of pushing an object on the ground into orbit using less energy than is associated with the energy of that orbit.

Remember, kinetic energy is relative.  As an example, from rest the energy associated with 0.1 m/s of delta-V is 0.005 J/kg.  At 7.5 km/s, the energy associated with 0.1 m/s is about 750 J/kg.  The key point is that the lower the velocity difference between an engine and its reaction mass, the lower the required energy output gets.  This is the Isp principle.

The reaction mass is distant matter.  Plenty of distant matter is moving at very close to whatever reasonable speed you want to go.

From the perspective of the drive, this means you do a small amount of positive work on that distant matter, causing it to move slowly in the direction opposite your thrust vector.

From the ground, the distant matter slows down slightly, doing a large amount of positive work on the already fast-moving M-E drive.

Ironically, this means that if you calculate based on exhaust velocity, the Isp of a Mach-effect drive is unimaginably low...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/28/2009 04:32 PM
Yeah, the basic assumptions that the Mach effect thruster acts under just don't seem to have much basis in anything but wishful thinking. I understand how they get around "conservation of momentum" by saying that it is conserved in the whole universe, but it just doesn't fly with my physical intuition. I mean, faith in local conservation of momentum was the only evidence we had for the existence of neutrinos for a couple decades. The locality of conservation laws is the basis of modern physics.

That being said, if the effect works (against all odds), then it'd be awesome. That's why it feels like mostly wishful thinking. Then again, high-temperature superconductors aren't supposed to work theoretically, but they do.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 09/28/2009 04:51 PM
The locality of conservation laws is the basis of modern physics.

How is GI field theory (which is grounded in GRT, by the way) fundamentally less plausible than universal gravitation?  It's not your garden-variety inverse square field, but it's still just field theory.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: BarryKirk on 09/28/2009 05:30 PM
Well... Assuming that the experimental results by Woodward and other is correct, and their is good reason to assume that they are.

Something is going on that mainstream theory is missing.

The real question is what is going on and can we leverage that into a useful technology.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/28/2009 06:24 PM

NOTE: 75 horsepower = 100 kW. Thus a 500 kW car engine is 375 hp, which is pretty typical for your top of the line sports cars.

au contraire, but 1 metric hp = 75 kgf.m/s  (735.5 W) and an old-school horse-power is 550 ft.lb/s (745.7 W.) Thus 75 hp isn't 100 kW, but just 55.164 kW. That's still pretty respectable. I have heard of a car with 750 hp under the hood. Of course what actually is converted into power on the road is substantially less due to thermodynamic & drive-train inefficiencies. Better efficiencies are possible, but for rather different engine configurations.

Sorry guys, but you are both in error.  Using the average of your own conversion factors for converting watts to horse-power, we get ~740 Watts/h-p.   We then calculate that 100,000 Watts / 740 Watts/hp = 135.15 h-p. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/28/2009 06:27 PM
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/29/2009 03:21 AM
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Very true!  However the engineer in me just couldn't let it pass without correction.  :)

BTW if folks are having trouble wrapping themselves around the idea of nonlocality when it comes to M-E energy and momentum conservation, perhaps they need to spend some time thinking about QM entanglements and John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM.  In fact, take a look at the presentations at Cramer's 75th Birthday Symposium/Program section and the Next Big Future's article on Cramer's retrocausal experiment.  If this exeriment is successful, it would butress Woodward's arguments a great deal.

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~lisa/CramerSymposium/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/john-cramers-retrocausal-experiments.html

You see, this is where QM and GRT are already starting to meet and this juncture could supply a ready explanation for how the M-E transfers energy and momentum effectively instantaneously via gravinertial waves to/from the rest of the casually connected mass/energy in the universe...

Edit: A Follow up note.  Have you ever wondered what I really mean when I say "causally connected universe"?  If Dr. Cramer's retrocausality idea is correct, which implies that his Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct, then at the moment of the big bang ~13.7 billion years ago when all the hydrogen and helium ions in THIS universe were created, their inertial masses could have been QM entangled never to be pulled asunder.  This QM reality could be at the heart of Mach’s principle and it could be why accelerating a local mass can backward accelerate all the rest of the mass/energy in the universe in near zero time.

BTW, we may still have to evoke a hyperdimensional (greater than 4D) explanations for the origins of QM entanglements as envisioned by 11D String Theoreticians, and as noted by Dr. Ruth Kastner in her Cramer Symposium “Quantum Liar” presentation, see below summary page.  I.e., energy & momentum transfer interactions “are transfer points of energy resulting from atemporal, a-spatial transactions”.  Thus we return to GRT’s concept of spacetime where past, present and future all coexist equally together in an atemporal and a-spatial manner.  So as Einstein once said; “People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

"1.  Photons do not move in trajectories, in acorpuscular sense, along one or the other arm of the MZI. They are transfer points of energy, etc. resulting from atemporal, a-spatial transactions.

2.  Transactions can project out a subsystem (e.g., absorption by one or the other atom)

3.  or, they can involve the entire system (detectionat D and measurement of spin along y)"
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 09/30/2009 02:40 AM
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Isn't it 4 orders of magnitude over what has been demonstrated?

And that actually puts it currently into the "less technically certain than the space elevator" column, as that only requires a 2 order of magnitude improvement in demonstrated materiel properties like tensile strength.

Anyway, it does seem kind of premature to assume that expending lots of resources in the direction of capacitor research could necessarily produce these results.

We've been looking for a similar increase in tokamok compression factors for about that long at a far higher cost and have been unable to achieve despite the resources spent.

It's not exactly like there's currently a dearth of research into improving capacitor dielectics, admittedly in a divergent direction though.

I'm not saying the research shouldn't be done --it's astounding to me that we're not doing more basic research in high-energy but accessible regions like this, where there a gaping holes in our knowledge.

But there's nothing to say that the 1:1 T:W Mach effect thruster won't always be another 20 years into the future just like the 1:1 Qin to Qout tokamok fusion machine.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/30/2009 04:24 AM
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Isn't it 4 orders of magnitude over what has been demonstrated?

And that actually puts it currently into the "less technically certain than the space elevator" column, as that only requires a 2 order of magnitude improvement in demonstrated materiel properties like tensile strength.

Anyway, it does seem kind of premature to assume that expending lots of resources in the direction of capacitor research could necessarily produce these results.

You haven't been looking at the equations? The chief gain is not from boosting cap K, it's from increasing the frequency of the driver to above the MHz range, refining it and getting the kinks out.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/30/2009 04:55 AM
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Isn't it 4 orders of magnitude over what has been demonstrated?

And that actually puts it currently into the "less technically certain than the space elevator" column, as that only requires a 2 order of magnitude improvement in demonstrated materiel properties like tensile strength.

Anyway, it does seem kind of premature to assume that expending lots of resources in the direction of capacitor research could necessarily produce these results.

You haven't been looking at the equations? The chief gain is not from boosting cap K, it's from increasing the frequency of the driver to above the MHz range, refining it and getting the kinks out.

Actually if one could come up with a dielectric with a WELL BALANCED set of cap dielectric parameters for the M-E MLTs, like a relative permittivity of ~1,000, a magnetic permeability of ~20, a well controlled piezoelectric response, a dissipation factor of less than 0.5% at 10 MHz in a dielectric that had a 1,000 hour or greater operating lifetime under full power conditions, we would be ready to start building levitating M-E test articles.  As noted, nobody in the high energy cap storage business is thinking about this kind of cap parameter mix until we show them it’s worth their time and money to do so.  And to do that we first have to make a convincing M-E demonstration using COTS parts and a much more optimized MLT or rotary M-E drive design and that will just take a lot of time (years) using our existing resources.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 09/30/2009 08:49 PM
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Isn't it 4 orders of magnitude over what has been demonstrated?

And that actually puts it currently into the "less technically certain than the space elevator" column, as that only requires a 2 order of magnitude improvement in demonstrated materiel properties like tensile strength.

Anyway, it does seem kind of premature to assume that expending lots of resources in the direction of capacitor research could necessarily produce these results.

You haven't been looking at the equations? The chief gain is not from boosting cap K, it's from increasing the frequency of the driver to above the MHz range, refining it and getting the kinks out.

Actually if one could come up with a dielectric with a WELL BALANCED set of cap dielectric parameters for the M-E MLTs, like a relative permittivity of ~1,000, a magnetic permeability of ~20, a well controlled piezoelectric response, a dissipation factor of less than 0.5% at 10 MHz in a dielectric that had a 1,000 hour or greater operating lifetime under full power conditions, we would be ready to start building levitating M-E test articles.  As noted, nobody in the high energy cap storage business is thinking about this kind of cap parameter mix until we show them it’s worth their time and money to do so.  And to do that we first have to make a convincing M-E demonstration using COTS parts and a much more optimized MLT or rotary M-E drive design and that will just take a lot of time (years) using our existing resources.

Understand all that. Unfortunately, it's a bit like looking for the high-temperature, high-current, high-permitivity superconductor, for which there is a pretty steep entry barrier and at existing operating requirements (i.e. low temperature) not yet a significant market.

Of course if Polywell or a similar fusion effort requiring SC magnets pans out, that is something that would change drastically, because that set of superconductive materiel requirements suddenly becomes a  technology with the killer app of fusion.

My point is that rarely do we make 3 or 4 order-of magnitude leaps in material properties except by utter and complete accident.

Superconducting super permeable capacitor anyone?

Of course I guess the first step is looking...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/30/2009 08:56 PM
Even at liquid nitrogen temperatures, I think there is a market for superconductors for power transmission... But my opinion is obviously a minority. For all the talk about efficiency, we aren't willing to put any capital into changing power-lines to this sort of technology, which could drastically reduce line-lossage. It's pretty much just because of high capital cost. Capital has an artificially high opportunity cost when you have the financial services industry fraudulently claiming guaranteed 15-20% rate of return...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 10/02/2009 02:53 AM
This research bears a lot in common with Polywell in terms of the skepticism with which most greet the implications if it is actually feasible. Where it differs is that it relies on a novel scientific theory whereas the IEC fusion is not only classically understandable, it doesn't challenge any theoretical physicists with new (or rather familiar old)  conceptions of the laws of physics.

I mean whereas with Polywell most just say the engineering won't work as expected (cross field transport or excesive brehmstrahhlung radiation or excessive electron Maxwellianization to name a few) to produce the agreed conditions that cause fusion...whereas this M-E concept challenges the entire, broad cutting edge of theroetical physics.

And, to top it all off you have to pull a few engineering rabbits out of hats to get the thing to have a useful purpose or perhaps even to have an unequivocal evidence.

Clearly you all are on the right track with first proving the theory, then worry about the practical engineering.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/02/2009 12:04 PM
Cuddihy:

"Clearly you all are on the right track with first proving the theory, then worry about the practical engineering."

What would you consider a convincing proof of principle test of the M-E?  Woodward's 2009 rotary data appears to be convincing to those who understand the experiment and the pitfalls of same, (the electrostriction issue), but I think an uninitiated scientist could have heart burn with it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 10/02/2009 09:00 PM
Cuddihy:

"Clearly you all are on the right track with first proving the theory, then worry about the practical engineering."

What would you consider a convincing proof of principle test of the M-E?  Woodward's 2009 rotary data appears to be convincing to those who understand the experiment and the pitfalls of same, (the electrostriction issue), but I think an uninitiated scientist could have heart burn with it.

Oh, levitation in a vacuum chamber should do it.  :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/02/2009 09:05 PM
Cuddihy:

"Clearly you all are on the right track with first proving the theory, then worry about the practical engineering."

What would you consider a convincing proof of principle test of the M-E?  Woodward's 2009 rotary data appears to be convincing to those who understand the experiment and the pitfalls of same, (the electrostriction issue), but I think an uninitiated scientist could have heart burn with it.

Oh, levitation in a vacuum chamber should do it.  :)

Even levitated on a reduced-gravity vomit-comet trajectory would convince me, as long as it was well-scrutinized and reproducible by third parties.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 10/02/2009 10:39 PM
Cuddihy:

"Clearly you all are on the right track with first proving the theory, then worry about the practical engineering."

What would you consider a convincing proof of principle test of the M-E?  Woodward's 2009 rotary data appears to be convincing to those who understand the experiment and the pitfalls of same, (the electrostriction issue), but I think an uninitiated scientist could have heart burn with it.

Well I think you folks are on the right path: keep pushing the envelope with the materials you have available and focus on reducing or eliminating potential losses, biases, and sources of error in measurements until you can attain a more convincing spread between observed M-E effect and the more mundane sources of force. Personally I'm one of those uninitiated who doesn't know anything about electrostriction but the fact that it's the same order of magnitude as the observed effects would make it tough for me to accept a new theory of inertia based on only the published results to date without me also becoming on expert on electrostriction.

For Polywell, it took Bussard and Krall figuring out the design philosophy of aiding rather than preventing electron recirculation before they could obtain low enough electron loss to get convincing levels of electron containment and then well depth. i.e. if they hadn't gone to conformal cans on WB-6 and then obtained neutron counts at those lower potentials, it is likely that Bussard's Google video talk would have been nothing but an interesting coda to an iconoclast's career. Instead it caused enough notice and impact to revive the Navy's interest in the idea and subsequently obtain funding.

Unforunately your team will likely have to delve much deeper into the engineering improvement just to prove that the physics is correct. The credibility level to aim at is the physics knowledge of the average college sophmore BS in engineering or science.

This means you focus on the familiar. i.e. focus on the torque pendulum methods because every one who took physics understands cavendish's experiment. That might mean trying to improve to the point where you get a visible deflection. Or at least where the M-E effects are 4 or more times the electrostrictive and piezoelectric forces, reliably.

You would know where the low hanging fruit for effort vs. improvement in output would be.

tom
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/03/2009 03:43 AM
Tom & Crew:

Goods points all and yes the most convincing M-E demonstration would be to levitate a self-contained/battery powered MLT or M-E rotary test article under remote RF or IR control into the conference room, land it, take off several times and then float it out in say a five minute time period.  However our current level of mastery of the M-E is not up to this levitating task yet, so Tom's torque pendulum or ~2 meter ballistics pendulum will probably have to do for a display mechanics for the next generation M-E test articles.  And I assume that we would also have to be able to generate a high enough thrust to weight ratio in the test article so it can push itself at least a couple of inches off the pendulum's null or at rest position for the duration of the power pulse to the MLT before we could convince anyone we weren't just dealing with wishful thinking. 

Now if we insist on a self contained and remote controlled test article needed to rule out a number of false positive candidate effects, I don't see a battery powered MLT test article coming in at less than 500-to-1,000 grams depending on the required drive electronics and its cooling requirements.  With that kind of test article mass, we will need at least 0.1 Newton (~10 gram-force) of thrust to get that much deflection on a 2-meter pendulum.  I think that could be doable with existing High-K caps being run at say 14 MHz and a few hundred volts peak on the cap-ring, or use Low-K caps if we push the frequency up to 28 MHz and its cap-ring voltage up to at least 10kV-p.  However, we still need to get the MLT's cap-ring bulk acceleration levels for either case up into the 100s of gees at the same time and that may take some very creative engineering and resources to accomplish, especially for the MLT. 

BTW, I found out last weekend that my 52 MHz MLT-2009 PTFE test article that I had reported on earlier this year on this forum turned out to be a real dud.  That is because of all its as-built parasitic capacitances and resulting losses that are killing off the counted on resonant behavior needed to reach the high voltages required to express the M-E in a Low-K PTFE cap-ring using my power limited 100W, 52 MHz RF supply.   It looks like I will have to lower its operating frequency and/or rebuild the MLT core to mitigate these parasitic losses before I can get up the high operating voltages I need to see any M-E effects.  And that is assuming I have the bulk acceleration problem solved in this test article, which is a big IF.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 10/03/2009 06:18 PM
Why would a levitator need to be battery powered?

As long as it is clearly not being supported by the power cables.

One that has identical performance in air & in a vacuum ( to discount ion wind) would be convincing.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/03/2009 09:45 PM
Why would a levitator need to be battery powered?

As long as it is clearly not being supported by the power cables.

One that has identical performance in air & in a vacuum ( to discount ion wind) would be convincing.

Using a self-contained battery powered test article takes away the last possibility of some type of back reaction masquerading as real thrust that was occurring through the test article’s remote power leads.

And yes, running the test article in vacuum verses air would be another verification method, but that could be simulated by just running the test article in a Faraday Shield can that would first kill off any thrust producing ion wind circulation, and also electrically shield the test equipment from stray EMI from the test article.  That is the way I built the Mach-2MHz MLT, but that test article was still powered remotely instead of being self-contained.

BTW, if the thrust signature is large enough, and by large enough I mean at least 0.1 Newton (~10 gram-force) in size, most of these alternate explanations for the thrust production sources become too small to be credible, especially if the test article is run in a Faraday Shield enclosure and/or in a vacuum chamber at 1x10^-6 Torr.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/04/2009 03:18 PM
Ion engines will work inside a Faraday cage.  It only blocks fields from outside.  You really want a vacuum chamber to be sure.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 10/04/2009 05:04 PM
2D travel over an air hockey table isn't enough?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/04/2009 05:29 PM
Ion engines will work inside a Faraday cage.  It only blocks fields from outside.  You really want a vacuum chamber to be sure.

Have you ever seen a helicopter stall close to the ground due to air recirculation around its main rotor?  In a like manner an ion wind lifter will kill its lift if you put it in a small enough box that creates a recirculating air mass flow that kills its lift.  The same goes for any thrust producing device that is put in a small enough CLOSED box, with the size and shape of the box being the key issues, because when the reverse propellant mass flow circulating around the engine equals the outgoing mass flow from the engine, its net thrust goes to zero.

Edit:  I added the word CLOSED above because if an ion engine in a vacuum chamber has active vacuum pumping going on during its run, any recirculating mass flows established around the engine will be siphoned off by the vacuum pumps.  In a related manner if a rocket engine was placed in a closed container it would pressurize it while setting up its mass flow recirculation pattern, which would no doubt stall the engine's combustion process when the internal box pressure reached the operating pressure of the rocket.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/04/2009 05:37 PM
2D travel over an air hockey table isn't enough?

If you mount the M-E test article in a Faraday shield can sized so that it will kill all normal mass flow rate related thrust signatures, an air hockey table would do very nicely IMO. 

BTW, the directed M-E gravinertial flux is not affected very much by nearby barriers because its effective wavelength is much longer than the barrier thickness presented by a normal thickness Faraday shield or standard glass or stainless steel vacuum chamber walls.   
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 10/05/2009 04:05 AM
Tom & Crew:

Goods points all and yes the most convincing M-E demonstration would be to levitate a self-contained/battery powered MLT or M-E rotary test article under remote RF or IR control into the conference room, land it, take off several times and then float it out in say a five minute time period.  However our current level of mastery of the M-E is not up to this levitating task yet, so Tom's torque pendulum or ~2 meter ballistics pendulum will probably have to do for a display mechanics for the next generation M-E test articles.  And I assume that we would also have to be able to generate a high enough thrust to weight ratio in the test article so it can push itself at least a couple of inches off the pendulum's null or at rest position for the duration of the power pulse to the MLT before we could convince anyone we weren't just dealing with wishful thinking. 

Now if we insist on a self contained and remote controlled test article needed to rule out a number of false positive candidate effects, I don't see a battery powered MLT test article coming in at less than 500-to-1,000 grams depending on the required drive electronics and its cooling requirements.  With that kind of test article mass, we will need at least 0.1 Newton (~10 gram-force) of thrust to get that much deflection on a 2-meter pendulum.  I think that could be doable with existing High-K caps being run at say 14 MHz and a few hundred volts peak on the cap-ring, or use Low-K caps if we push the frequency up to 28 MHz and its cap-ring voltage up to at least 10kV-p.  However, we still need to get the MLT's cap-ring bulk acceleration levels for either case up into the 100s of gees at the same time and that may take some very creative engineering and resources to accomplish, especially for the MLT. 

BTW, I found out last weekend that my 52 MHz MLT-2009 PTFE test article that I had reported on earlier this year on this forum turned out to be a real dud.  That is because of all its as-built parasitic capacitances and resulting losses that are killing off the counted on resonant behavior needed to reach the high voltages required to express the M-E in a Low-K PTFE cap-ring using my power limited 100W, 52 MHz RF supply.   It looks like I will have to lower its operating frequency and/or rebuild the MLT core to mitigate these parasitic losses before I can get up the high operating voltages I need to see any M-E effects.  And that is assuming I have the bulk acceleration problem solved in this test article, which is a big IF.

BTW, one thing I don't get -- it seems like a lot of sources of error come in from the effects of different dielectrics like electrostrictive effects. If you had a big capacitor without dielectric (vacuum), obviously you couldn't put as much power through it, but electrostriction goes away, permeability is no longer an issue, voltage can be arbitrarily high,etc.

I mean the power issue alone makes it no go for useful purposes, but for measurement, why doesn't this work?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/05/2009 08:03 AM
In a like manner an ion wind lifter will kill its lift if you put it in a small enough box that creates a recirculating air mass flow that kills its lift.

Okay, but it won't kill ALL lift, and you've got to convince reviewers that they're seeing a really exotic physical effect instead of a mundane one they already know is present.

If you had a big capacitor without dielectric (vacuum), obviously you couldn't put as much power through it, but electrostriction goes away, permeability is no longer an issue, voltage can be arbitrarily high,etc.

I mean the power issue alone makes it no go for useful purposes, but for measurement, why doesn't this work?

If I'm not mistaken, the device needs to operate on the atoms in the dielectric in order to oscillate their mass.  If there isn't a dielectric, there's nothing to oscillate.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/05/2009 03:02 PM
In a like manner an ion wind lifter will kill its lift if you put it in a small enough box that creates a recirculating air mass flow that kills its lift.

Okay, but it won't kill ALL lift, and you've got to convince reviewers that they're seeing a really exotic physical effect instead of a mundane one they already know is present.

If you had a big capacitor without dielectric (vacuum), obviously you couldn't put as much power through it, but electrostriction goes away, permeability is no longer an issue, voltage can be arbitrarily high,etc.

I mean the power issue alone makes it no go for useful purposes, but for measurement, why doesn't this work?

If I'm not mistaken, the device needs to operate on the atoms in the dielectric in order to oscillate their mass.  If there isn't a dielectric, there's nothing to oscillate.

"Okay, but it won't kill ALL lift, and you've got to convince reviewers that they're seeing a really exotic physical effect instead of a mundane one they already know is present."

Yea, OK but that ups the price of the experiment by at least the ~$12k needed for the 1x10^-6 vacuum system.  And if I don't go that low in pressure, I get into glow discharge problems with the test article.

"If I'm not mistaken, the device needs to operate on the atoms in the dielectric in order to oscillate their mass.  If there isn't a dielectric, there's nothing to oscillate."

That is correct per Woodward.  If the mass or vacuum density fluctuations are actually occuring in the space and E-& B-fields around the ions though, then a vacuum dielectric may work, (See Sonny White's STAIF-2007 presentation posted in this forum.).  However, to see measurable forces in a 2-meter ballistics pendulum, it takes running the cap cavity at ~2.45 GHz with ac peak voltages measured in the thousands of volts.  Such an experiment is in the works by White.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 2.71 on 10/05/2009 06:17 PM
@Star-Drive

I know I'm a little late on this response, but what would the problem be with using vacuum caps? Like these:

http://www.jenningstech.com/pdf/cap/vacfix/MMHC-450-50S.pdf
http://www.jenningstech.com/ps/jen/caplist.cgi

I tried scanning back through the thread, and I don't recall if the M-E effect relies on a dialectric with mass. I seem to remember that it does.

Although, if it does, then comparing results between the vacuum cap and a ceramic cap could be another way of demonstrating the effect, right? In other words, using a vacuum cap as a control.

2.71

You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Isn't it 4 orders of magnitude over what has been demonstrated?

And that actually puts it currently into the "less technically certain than the space elevator" column, as that only requires a 2 order of magnitude improvement in demonstrated materiel properties like tensile strength.

Anyway, it does seem kind of premature to assume that expending lots of resources in the direction of capacitor research could necessarily produce these results.

You haven't been looking at the equations? The chief gain is not from boosting cap K, it's from increasing the frequency of the driver to above the MHz range, refining it and getting the kinks out.

Actually if one could come up with a dielectric with a WELL BALANCED set of cap dielectric parameters for the M-E MLTs, like a relative permittivity of ~1,000, a magnetic permeability of ~20, a well controlled piezoelectric response, a dissipation factor of less than 0.5% at 10 MHz in a dielectric that had a 1,000 hour or greater operating lifetime under full power conditions, we would be ready to start building levitating M-E test articles.  As noted, nobody in the high energy cap storage business is thinking about this kind of cap parameter mix until we show them it’s worth their time and money to do so.  And to do that we first have to make a convincing M-E demonstration using COTS parts and a much more optimized MLT or rotary M-E drive design and that will just take a lot of time (years) using our existing resources.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2009 06:30 PM
Why would the caps need matter in the dielectric? Energy has mass (as seen in the fact that a proton weighs much more than the sum of its quarks), so a vacuum cap that stores energy would have a mass fluctuation (assuming the Woodwardian theory is correct). Prove to me why this isn't the case!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 2.71 on 10/05/2009 06:34 PM
My previous post was a question, so no proof is necessary.

2.71
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/05/2009 07:02 PM
Why would the caps need matter in the dielectric? Energy has mass (as seen in the fact that a proton weighs much more than the sum of its quarks), so a vacuum cap that stores energy would have a mass fluctuation (assuming the Woodwardian theory is correct). Prove to me why this isn't the case!

Well, I have to modify my original statement on further reflection in answer to your above vacuum assertion.  To start off, if we ask the question does the energy flux in the E- and B-fields contained in between the electrodes of a vacuum capacitor have ANY inertial mass to fluctuate, what is the answer?  On first pass one could easily say like I did in this thread that hell no it’s a featureless & massless vacuum!  However, per the tenants of GRT all mass and energy concentrations should be able to bend spacetime to one degree or another, and therefore even dilute energy concentrations in the guise of weak E&M fields should have some inertial mass to fluctuate, but it’s going to be a whole lot smaller, (that 1/c^2 thing), than a massive dielectric being in its place.  So in reality it all boils down to how much mass fluctuations one can obtain from a diffuse energy concentration provided by the E&M fields in the vacuum cap, verses a much more concentrated form of mass/energy called mass.  I suppose that if the d^2E/dt^2 power flux and bulk accelerations are large enough, even a vacuum cap should be able to sing the M-E.  The next question is under what operating conditions will such an M-E device generate a detectable mass fluctuations signal?  Back to the drawing boards…
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 2.71 on 10/05/2009 07:12 PM
Ok, but how about using vacuum caps as experimental controls to support your results? Wouldn't the difference between performance of the two dialectrics give insight into the process, and help sway skeptics (provided the results are as predicted, of course)?

2.71
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/05/2009 10:15 PM
Ok, but how about using vacuum caps as experimental controls to support your results? Wouldn't the difference between performance of the two dialectrics give insight into the process, and help sway skeptics (provided the results are as predicted, of course)?

2.71

 Yes, it's possible to use the vacuum caps as controls for high-k caps for M-E drives, provided the vacuum cap has a similar form factor to the high-k cap, so the MLT's B-field flux through each would be close to the same.  However, for MLTs, the Lorentz force is proportional to the ionic velocity of the dielectric's ions in the dielectric crossed with the applied B-field, but in a vacuum cap there are no ions to accelerated in a GRT world at least, so whether the crossed B-field would affect the E- and B-fields in the same vxB manner is an unknown to me at the moment.  One way to avoid this issue would be to run these vacuum caps and the high-k dielectric caps in a rotary M-E drive that doesn't rely on the vxB Lorentz force for its bulk acceleration.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 10/05/2009 10:20 PM
Ok, but how about using vacuum caps as experimental controls to support your results? Wouldn't the difference between performance of the two dialectrics give insight into the process, and help sway skeptics (provided the results are as predicted, of course)?

2.71

the problem with this is, how do you set a vacuum capacitor equal to a dielectric capacitor as a control? There's basically nothing common between a vacuum capacitor and a dialectric, they would require entirely different setups...hmm...
It's a puzzler...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 10/06/2009 03:36 AM
May I point out that the ME thruster itself doesn't have to be in vacuum? It could be in a sealed container at 1 atm, placed in a vacuum chamber.

If there are any dielectric or other advantages to higher pressure or non-air atmosphere, that could be explored too.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/06/2009 07:43 AM

"If I'm not mistaken, the device needs to operate on the atoms in the dielectric in order to oscillate their mass.  If there isn't a dielectric, there's nothing to oscillate."

That is correct per Woodward.  If the mass or vacuum density fluctuations are actually occuring in the space and E-& B-fields around the ions though, then a vacuum dielectric may work, (See Sonny White's STAIF-2007 presentation posted in this forum.).  However, to see measurable forces in a 2-meter ballistics pendulum, it takes running the cap cavity at ~2.45 GHz with ac peak voltages measured in the thousands of volts.  Such an experiment is in the works by White.


I'm curious though. Anyone familliar with semiconductor electronics knows that some types of transistors dont move ions or electrons around so much as 'holes' in the semi conductor matrix.

It should actually be much easier to vary the mass of electrons than of ionized atoms, because the charge acting on the electron will vary its velocity proportionate to the charge. Thus you should be able to establish an electromagnetically asymmetric electron centrifuge chamber where the electrons vary speed from high on one side of the centrifuge orbit to slow on the opposite so that the electrons move in and out of a relativistic velocity range, thus varying their masses according to general relativity from one side to the other. This will produce a thrust vector in the direction adjacent to the side where the electrons are higher mass due to higher relativistic velocity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/06/2009 10:36 AM
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/06/2009 12:05 PM
May I point out that the ME thruster itself doesn't have to be in vacuum? It could be in a sealed container at 1 atm, placed in a vacuum chamber.

If there are any dielectric or other advantages to higher pressure or non-air atmosphere, that could be explored too.

If a self-contained, battery-powered M-E drive is rigidly attached into a hermetically sealed Faraday shield can where no accelerated gases or ions can escape it, and there are no power or control leads going into or out of the Faraday shield that could ionize the ambient air around them or the can, save an optical window in the can where optical control and data signals can be passed, there should by definition be no possibility of extraneous thrust signatures being generated from ion wind or any other mundane Newtonian source other than the pico-Newton forces generated by the optical control signals themselves.  We can say this because the net regular mass flow rate crossing the Faraday shield boundary is ZERO.  If there is NO normal delta mass flow rate going across this system boundary, no thrust can be produced per conservation of momentum.  And since my thrust measurement system only has a resolution of tens of micro-Newtons, I don't care about extraneous pico-Newton grade control signals.  Given these constraints, why do I need a vacuum system again? 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/06/2009 04:11 PM
Differential heating of the Faraday can.  Solvable with thermometers?

Magnetic effects.  You might want to have a magnetic shield around the assembly.  Not that this would change if you had a vacuum chamber, although a steel vacuum chamber might do on its own...

Best solution is to get the thrust up to the point where none of the mundane explanations make any sense.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/06/2009 05:39 PM
Differential heating of the Faraday can.  Solvable with thermometers?

Magnetic effects.  You might want to have a magnetic shield around the assembly.  Not that this would change if you had a vacuum chamber, although a steel vacuum chamber might do on its own...

Best solution is to get the thrust up to the point where none of the mundane explanations make any sense.

Mitigating differential heating of the hermetically sealed Faraday Shield can M-E test article would be taken care of by the use of a copper heat spreader in the can and locating the high heat sources in the center of the can.  Mounting the can on its side for a test and then vertically would also add another control for this issue.

Minimizing magnetic interactions with outside magnetic sources or ferromagnetic materials are taken care of by using a steel Faraday Can with a magnetic permeability of at least 200.  If needed, a secondary layer of mu-metal (mu=10,000 or higher) can be mounted inside the can.  That is how I built the Mach-2MHz MLT by using a steel MinWax polish can sans the mu-metal layer and of course the MinWax polish.

Agreed, the best solution is to maximize the thrust output above 10.0 milli-Newton and preferably 0.1 Newton or higher.  If I can get to that thrust level with all the noted controls in place, for me that's going to be as good as it gets unless someone is willing to donate the use of their  <1x10^-6 Torr vacuum chamber for a few data runs.  Being a self-contained unit should make this vacuum test relatively straight forward except for thermal issues.  I’d also be willing to run this self-contained M-E drive unit on my son’s air hockey table with videos of same, though for the first go around, it will only be a one axis thruster.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 2.71 on 10/06/2009 07:02 PM
Ok, but how about using vacuum caps as experimental controls to support your results? Wouldn't the difference between performance of the two dialectrics give insight into the process, and help sway skeptics (provided the results are as predicted, of course)?

2.71

 Yes, it's possible to use the vacuum caps as controls for high-k caps for M-E drives, provided the vacuum cap has a similar form factor to the high-k cap, so the MLT's B-field flux through each would be close to the same.  However, for MLTs, the Lorentz force is proportional to the ionic velocity of the dielectric's ions in the dielectric crossed with the applied B-field, but in a vacuum cap there are no ions to accelerated in a GRT world at least, so whether the crossed B-field would affect the E- and B-fields in the same vxB manner is an unknown to me at the moment.  One way to avoid this issue would be to run these vacuum caps and the high-k dielectric caps in a rotary M-E drive that doesn't rely on the vxB Lorentz force for its bulk acceleration.

Thanks. What I was getting at was that if you run the same experimental setup two times (once with the vacuum cap and once with a ceramic cap) and the thrust was measurable with ceramic but NOT with vacuum, then that goes at least part of the way to refuting claims that the thrust originates from non-capacitor related phenomena.

Of course, vacuum caps are relatively large, which would require designing around them. So this is possibly not feasible.

But if this can be easily crowbar-ed into an existing test article, do you think that it could help?

2.71
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 10/07/2009 03:52 AM
I just had another odd notion along the same line: instead of normal capacitor at vacuum or with dielectric, what if you used a gas-filled canister (like a gamma flux detector) as the load? The gas wouldn't provide a lot of mass for the fluctuation but with a noble gas at the right voltage and pressure, you would get a rapid ionization, cascade as it discharges, then a quench, over each cycle.

Add to that charge effect a gas mass-oscillation as the positively charged gas ions rush the anode, which since it is A/C is switching each half-cycle. So maybe no piezo needed?

Anyway, not sure if this would work as described but worth thinking about?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 10/07/2009 04:03 AM
I have an idea for y'all.  How much power does a reasonable thruster need.  How about a small payload with solar cells to run a test unit on orbit for a while.  This should make it easy to measure any thrust.

Also, if the current thrust level is so low it is hard to even measure, you are a long long way from making a practical thruster. 

But good luck.  I hope y'all are right.  Going after a measurement is the right idea.  Can I have a portion of the Nobel Prize in Physic when you can provide a repeatable measurement?

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/07/2009 04:12 AM
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...

Well that depends on how many electrons you are handling plus the mass differential between high speed and low speed sides. If the solid capacitors dielectric atoms can only be varied in mass by 0.001%, and you can instead move 1000 electrons with a mass variance of 50% as they go from .1 c to .999 c from one side of the chamber to the other, and an electron is 0.0005 AMU at rest (thus becoming 0.001 AMU at .999c) then 1000 electrons exhibit a mass variance of 1 AMU per cycle.

Because you can move electrons much faster than ions, then you should be able to achieve MUCH higher cycle frequencies with the electrons in the chamber than you could with ions in a dielectric. As the charts that Paul has posted here indicate, higher the frequency, the higher the efficiency and higher the thrust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/07/2009 11:06 PM
I have an idea for y'all.  How much power does a reasonable thruster need.  How about a small payload with solar cells to run a test unit on orbit for a while.  This should make it easy to measure any thrust.

Also, if the current thrust level is so low it is hard to even measure, you are a long long way from making a practical thruster. 

But good luck.  I hope y'all are right.  Going after a measurement is the right idea.  Can I have a portion of the Nobel Prize in Physic when you can provide a repeatable measurement?

Danny Deger

"I have an idea for y'all.  How much power does a reasonable thruster need.  How about a small payload with solar cells to run a test unit on orbit for a while.  This should make it easy to measure any thrust."

That would be great!  However who is going to pay for this little space junket?  Even assuming the Falcon-1X is still only asking $10 million for a flight, that is so far out of our league as to be obscene.  And even a suborbital flight on say Spaceship-2 that provides only ~5 minutes of zero gee time runs over $200K per seat and considering it would take two seats with one for the operator and one for the experiment, we are talking close to $1/2 million dollars for that very precious five minutes.  No, I think I'll stick to air hockey tables when the time is right.

As to measuring small thrust levels, my Mach-2MHz had a maximum thrust of close to 5.0 milli-Newton, which is more than good enough to demonstrate the effect if people could be persuaded that all other mundane error sources had been removed from it.  I can now see there is some legitimate complaints about how I performed that experiment, so I'll try it again, but this time doubling the number of caps and build it into a self contained, hermetically sealed and battery powered test article and see how that fairs. 

Nobel prize?  If anyone deserves that honor it’s Jim Woodward, but I’m not holding my breath on that score either considering how Einstein was treated.  (His Nobel Prize was for the photoelectric effect and NOT his relativity papers be they special or general.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/07/2009 11:17 PM
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...

Well that depends on how many electrons you are handling plus the mass differential between high speed and low speed sides. If the solid capacitors dielectric atoms can only be varied in mass by 0.001%, and you can instead move 1000 electrons with a mass variance of 50% as they go from .1 c to .999 c from one side of the chamber to the other, and an electron is 0.0005 AM